similarity leniency hypothesis definition quizlet

Flashcard Machine - create, study and share online flash cards

My flashcards, flashcard library.

Create Account

Flashcards >>
Psychology >>
Psych and Law Final Exam

Shared Flashcard Set

Cards return to set details.

Collaborative Sets
Study Sessions
Flashcard Pages
About FlashcardMachine
Support Form
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Getting Started
Apple App Store
Google Play
Amazon Apps

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Front Psychol

The Interactive Effects of Race and Expert Testimony on Jurors’ Perceptions of Recanted Confessions

Logan ewanation.

1 Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Evelyn M. Maeder

2 Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Associated Data

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

We examined the effect of defendant race and expert testimony on jurors’ perceptions of recanted confessions. Participants (591 jury-eligible community members) read a first-degree murder trial transcript in which defendant race (Black/White) and expert testimony (present/absent) were manipulated. They provided verdicts and answered questions regarding the confession and expert testimony. When examining the full sample, we observed no significant main effects or interactions of defendant race or expert testimony. When exclusively examining White participants, we observed a significant interaction between expert testimony and defendant race on verdicts. When the defendant was White, there was no significant effect of expert testimony, but when the defendant was Black, jurors were significantly more likely to acquit when given expert testimony. These findings support the watchdog hypothesis, such that White jurors are more receptive to legally relevant evidence when the defendant is Black.

Introduction

Empirical research indicates that suspects falsely confess to crimes for a variety of reasons ( Kassin and Kiechel, 1996 ; King and Snook, 2009 ). According to the Innocence Project (2021) , false confessions 1 were involved in approximately a quarter of the cases that have been exonerated through DNA evidence. However, confessions remain one of the most influential forms of evidence in the courtroom ( Kassin and Neumann, 1997 ; Lieberman et al., 2008 ). Although expert witnesses are sometimes used to safeguard against issues with confession evidence, the effect of expert testimony on jurors’ perceptions of recanted confessions is unclear ( Moffa and Platania, 2007 ; Blandon-Gitlin et al., 2011 ). Further, jurors’ perceptions of recanted confessions may depend upon the suspect’s race, as jurors perceive confessions as more voluntary when the defendant belongs to a racial minority ( Pickel et al., 2013 ).

Most research focusing on the interaction between juror and defendant race has found that jurors are more lenient toward same-race defendants (see Devine and Caughlin, 2014 ). However, Sargent and Bradfield (2004) found that White mock jurors were more sensitive to legally relevant evidence in a trial transcript when the defendant was Black as compared to White. These authors argued that White jurors may attend to evidence more closely when the defendant is Black in an effort to serve as “watchdogs” against racism (termed the watchdog hypothesis). In a case in which a defendant has recanted their confession, the watchdog hypothesis would suggest that jurors may be more receptive to expert testimony (regarding factors that increase the likelihood of false confessions) when the defendant is Black, resulting in fewer guilty verdicts. The current study examines the interactive effects of defendant race and expert testimony on jurors’ perceptions of recanted confessions.

Confession Evidence

Empirical research has demonstrated that individuals may falsely confess to crimes that they did not commit (e.g., Kassin and Kiechel, 1996 ; Redlich et al., 2010 ) for a variety of reasons, including coercive interrogation tactics ( Kassin et al., 2003 ; King and Snook, 2009 ). However, in a criminal trial, a defendant’s confession is one of the most influential forms of evidence that the prosecution can present ( Kassin and Neumann, 1997 ; Lieberman et al., 2008 ; Schweitzer and Nuñez, 2018 ). For instance, Lieberman et al. (2008) demonstrated that among several types of evidence, the only type that participants perceived as more persuasive than a suspect’s confession was DNA analysis. Even then, there are plenty of anecdotal instances in which law enforcement officials have ignored exculpatory DNA evidence in investigations when the suspect has confessed (e.g., the Central Park jogger case, Juan Rivera, the Norfolk Four; Duru, 2003 ; Leo and Davis, 2010 ). Furthermore, Appleby and Kassin (2016) conducted a series of jury studies involving conflicting DNA and confession evidence. Although participants were overall more likely to render a verdict in line with the DNA evidence, the authors also observed that perceptions of culpability and the proportion of guilty verdicts rose significantly when the prosecution presented a theory to explain the contradicting exculpatory DNA evidence (e.g., the DNA evidence only indicated that the defendant had not ejaculated).

Unfortunately, the phenomenon of false confessions is by no means a rare occurrence. Depending on particular definitions and methodology 2 , scholars estimate that false confessions contribute to 12–26% of wrongful convictions ( Gudjonsson, 2003 ; Innocence Project, 2021 ; National Registry of Exonerations, 2020 ). Further research suggests that 73–81% of individuals who falsely confess are eventually convicted of the crime ( Leo and Ofshe, 1998 ; Drizin and Leo, 2004 ). This type of evidence may be so problematic partly because jurors are unable to distinguish between true and false confessions ( Kassin et al., 2005 ; Levine et al., 2010 ) and are unreceptive to the idea that an innocent person would ever falsely admit to a crime ( Leo and Davis, 2010 ; Blandon-Gitlin et al., 2011 ). In an attempt to safeguard against the serious implications of a false confession, some states have allowed expert witnesses to testify about the science concerning this type of evidence ( Kassin, 2008 ; Fulero, 2010 ).

Expert Testimony

A small number of studies have investigated the effect that expert testimony has on jurors’ perceptions of recanted confessions. Jurors themselves report that such testimony would assist in their evaluation of this form of evidence (e.g., Chojnacki et al., 2008 ; Costanzo et al., 2010 ). However, findings concerning expert testimony’s actual influence on verdicts in confession trials are mixed ( Blandon-Gitlin et al., 2011 ; Gomes et al., 2016 ; Henderson and Levett, 2016 ). For instance, a number of studies have observed no differences in verdicts between jurors who have and have not been presented with expert testimony in mock homicide trials ( Moffa and Platania, 2007 ; Henderson and Levett, 2016 , Study 2; Jones and Penrod, 2016 ). In comparison, Blandon-Gitlin et al. (2011) found that participants who read a trial transcript involving a recanted confession were less likely to render a guilty verdict after being exposed to expert testimony.

If working as intended, expert testimony should sensitize jurors to the quality of the confession ( Cutler et al., 1989 ; Levett and Kovera, 2008 ), thus leading to fewer convictions when the confession is low quality (e.g., when several interrogation tactics known to elicit false confession have been used). However, rather than sensitizing jurors to variations in the quality of confession evidence, expert testimony may instead induce a general skepticism concerning confessions. For example, Woody and Forrest (2009) found that jurors presented with expert testimony concerning false confessions were significantly less likely to convict the defendant, regardless of whether a false evidence ploy was used in the interrogation. In a similar study involving mock jurors, Woestehoff and Meissner(2016 , Study 3) manipulated the pressure and number of coercive interrogation tactics used in a defendant’s confession, as well as the presence of expert testimony. Overall, jurors were less likely to convict the defendant when exposed to expert testimony. This effect held regardless of how much pressure was involved in the defendant’s interrogation. Interestingly, Woestehoff and Meissner (2016) observed an effect of interrogation pressure independent of the expert witness; jurors given the high and medium-pressure conditions were significantly less likely to convict as compared to jurors who read about a low-pressure confession. These participants therefore appeared to be sensitive to variations in the confession evidence’s strength without the help of expert testimony.

Overall, there are conflicting findings regarding the effectiveness of expert testimony in cases involving a recanted confession. One factor that may explain these contradictory results is the race of the defendant. As described below, previous research has suggested that defendant race may influence jurors’ perceptions of the confession itself ( Ratcliff et al., 2010 ; Pickel et al., 2013 ).

Race in the Criminal Courtroom

An abundance of research examining the influence of defendant race has found that jurors often discriminate against defendants belonging to a racial minority (e.g., ForsterLee et al., 2006 ; Struckman-Johnson et al., 2008 ; Pickel et al., 2013 ). Specifically, jurors’ perceptions of confession evidence appear to depend upon the defendant’s race ( Ratcliff et al., 2010 ; Pickel et al., 2013 ). Pickel et al. (2013) presented mock jurors with a confession video wherein the defendant’s race was ambiguous. Jurors who were told the defendant was Arab American rated the confession as more voluntary and were more likely to convict than those who believed the defendant was White. In similar research, Ratcliff et al. (2010) found that participants shown a video of a confession believed that the confession was more voluntary, and that the suspect was more likely to be guilty, if the suspect was Asian or Black, as opposed to White.

Several studies have further observed the existence of an overall similarity-leniency bias within the courtroom, such that jurors perceive defendants of the same race more favorably than other-race defendants (see Mitchell et al., 2005 ; Devine and Caughlin, 2014 for meta-analyses). This similarity-leniency bias may be explained by social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel and Turner, 1986 ), which argues that people have a motivation to favor and prefer individuals belonging to their groups (rather than those outside of their groups) as a method of promoting a positive self-concept. In a criminal trial, social identity theory would therefore predict that jurors are more likely to acquit a defendant of the same race (and more likely to convict a defendant of a different race).

However, the watchdog hypothesis ( Sargent and Bradfield, 2004 ) suggests that White jurors are motivated to protect against discrimination and thus pay more attention to legally relevant information when the defendant is Black. Using simulated vignettes describing a robbery trial, Sargent and Bradfield (2004) manipulated alibi evidence strength (Study 1), cross-examination effectiveness (Study 2), and defendant race, in two samples of White mock jurors. They found that White jurors were more sensitive to manipulations of alibi strength and cross-examination effectiveness when the defendant was Black as opposed to White. The authors argued that White jurors may have attended to this information more closely in an effort to be “watchdogs” against racism. In trials involving recanted confessions, jurors may therefore be more receptive to expert testimony (concerning the phenomenon of false confessions) when the defendant is Black as compared to White.

Current Study

Previous research has observed conflicting findings concerning the effect of expert testimony in trials involving recanted confessions. Furthermore, although research examining juror and defendant race has demonstrated a similarity-leniency bias (see Devine and Caughlin, 2014 ), Sargent and Bradfield (2004) suggest that White jurors may pay more attention to legally relevant evidence when the defendant is Black. The current study therefore aimed to examine the interactive effects of defendant race and expert testimony on jurors’ perceptions of recanted confessions. Drawing upon previous research, we developed two hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: Based on previous literature suggesting that jurors perceive confessions to be less voluntary for White defendants (e.g., Ratcliff et al., 2010 ), and other research demonstrating an outgroup bias in verdict decisions (e.g., Devine and Caughlin, 2014 ), we predicted a main effect for defendant race such that [predominantly White ( United States Census Bureau, 2019 )] participants would be more likely to convict the Black defendant than his White counterpart.
Hypothesis 2: However, in accordance with the watchdog hypothesis ( Sargent and Bradfield, 2004 ), we predicted an interaction between defendant race and expert testimony for White participants. Specifically, White participants would render fewer convictions in conditions with expert testimony as compared to conditions with no expert testimony for the Black defendant (with no such effect for the White defendant), as this testimony is legally relevant information to which they could attend to be “watchdogs” against racism.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

Research has demonstrated that crowd sourced samples can be more heterogenous as compared to traditional undergraduate college samples ( Paolacci et al., 2010 ; Paolacci and Chandler, 2014 ; Baker et al., 2016 ). We therefore recruited participants using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). We compensated participants with $3 for successfully completing the study. Although we had 1133 responses to our task, one participant did not give informed consent, 248 participants failed manipulation/attention checks 3 , 235 participants were ineligible for jury duty in the United States, and 58 participants quit the survey prior to completion. Our final sample therefore consisted of 591 jury-eligible community members (i.e., citizens of the United States who were at least 18 years old with no unpardoned felony conviction). Three-hundred and thirty-one (55.4%) of the participants were women, 263 (44.1%) were men, and three (0.5%) identified as another gender. Participants’ ages ranged from 19 to 69 years old ( M = 36). Four-hundred and eighty-seven (81.6%) of the participants were White, 51 (8.5%) were Black, 27 (4.5%) were Hispanic, 21 (3.5%) were Asian, four (0.7%) were Native American, and seven (1.2%) identified as another race. Our participants’ racial demographics are similar to what other researchers have observed using MTurk (e.g., Burnham et al., 2018 ), and are comparable to the general United States population ( United States Census Bureau, 2019 ), although our sample contained a slightly lower percentage of individuals identifying as Black (8.5 vs. 13.4%).

Screening/Demographic Questionnaire

We used a demographic questionnaire in order to screen participants to ensure that they were jury-eligible. Participants were also asked to provide information regarding their race and gender.

Trial Transcript

We used a trial transcript adapted from previous research ( Kassin and Sommers, 1997 ; Sommers and Kassin, 2001 ; Henkel, 2008 ). The transcript involved a defendant charged with murdering his wife and neighbor. The prosecution argued that the defendant had arrived home to find his wife and neighbor together, and believing they were having an affair, he killed them in an act of jealousy. However, the defendant claimed that his wife and neighbor were already dead when he came home. The defendant had initially confessed to the crime, but later recanted the confession. Apart from this confession, the remaining evidence was circumstantial (e.g., a witness saw someone fleeing the crime scene who matched the general physical description of the defendant). The defendant testified that during his interrogation he was handcuffed to a desk in a small room for more than 5 h and claimed the interrogating officer had physically threatened him with his service weapon. The defendant also stated that he was experiencing an immense amount of stress and in a state of shock during the interrogation because he had learned of his wife’s death only hours before. Finally, the defendant testified that the interrogating officer had repeatedly told him that his actions (killing his cheating spouse and her lover) were understandable, and that no one would blame him for what he did (i.e., minimization, Kassin and McNall, 1991 ). In each transcript, we manipulated the defendant’s race (Black, White) and presence of expert testimony (present, not present). Defendant race was manipulated by including a color photograph [matched in a pilot study ( N = 30) on perceived age, likeability, and attractiveness] of the defendant, along with varying his name (Charles Smith for the White defendant and Jamaal Washington for the Black defendant) to strengthen our race manipulation. Previous research has used names to manipulate race (e.g., Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2004 ; Widner and Chicoine, 2011 ; Alhabash et al., 2014 ), as names can reinforce racial stereotypes and elicit biased judgments ( Bodenhausen and Wyer, 1985 ; Watson et al., 2011 ; Garcia and Abascal, 2016 ). In half of the transcripts, an expert witness specializing in confession research testified for the Defense. The expert primarily testified about two situational factors – minimization techniques and extended periods of time – that increase the likelihood of a false confession, both of which he noted were present in the defendant’s confession and interrogation. The expert also discussed independent knowledge of the crime (underscoring the fact that the defendant’s confession did not include details that only the true perpetrator of the crime would know), as well as the prevalence of wrongful convictions that involve a false confession.

Jury Instructions

Before and after the transcript, we provided participants with juror instructions adapted from the California Criminal Jury Instructions ( Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions, 2020 ). The instructions discussed the criteria for first-degree murder, as well as the lesser-included second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter charges, and also informed participants about the burden of proof and reasonable doubt.

Juror Questionnaire

In accordance with the legal instructions, we first asked participants to render a dichotomous verdict concerning the first-degree murder charge (guilty/not guilty). Participants who selected not guilty were then asked to render a dichotomous verdict concerning a second-degree murder charge (guilty/not guilty). Participants who still selected not guilty were then finally asked to render a dichotomous verdict concerning a voluntary manslaughter charge (guilty/not guilty). Logistically, we felt this method most appropriately reflected how jurors decide verdicts in California, as a juror who renders a guilty verdict for first-degree murder would not need to vote on the lesser-included offenses. We also asked participants to indicate on a scale from 1 ( not at all ) to 9 ( very much ) the degree to which they felt the defendant’s confession was voluntary (“How voluntary was the defendant’s confession?”).

The questionnaire also included a manipulation check, which asked participants to identify the race of the defendant from a list of options. In conditions with expert testimony, we asked participants to identify what the expert witness testified about (“What was a factor that the false confession expert, Dr. Turner, discussed?”) from a list of options to demonstrate that they had attended to this material. We embedded three other attention checks that required participants to select a specific response (e.g., “This is an attention check. Select Strongly Agree.”).

Participants were recruited from MTurk and completed the study online using Qualtrics survey software. Once participants had given informed consent, they were screened to ensure they met jury-eligibility requirements. We randomly assigned eligible participants to one of the four trial transcripts. Before and after reading the transcript, participants were provided with relevant legal instructions. After reading the transcript, participants responded to the juror questionnaire. Upon completion, participants were thanked, debriefed, and compensated. Participation in the study lasted approximately 30–45 min.

Tables 1–3 display a breakdown of verdicts by condition for the first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter charges, respectively. Table 4 summarizes the percentage of not guilty verdicts by verdict option for all participants as well as for White participants only. Prior to running the regression, we indicator coded our predictor variables (0 = no expert, 1 = expert present, and 0 = White defendant, 1 = Black defendant, respectively). We coded our ordinal outcome variable as 0 = not guilty, 1 = guilty of manslaughter, 2 = guilty of second-degree murder, and 3 = guilty of first-degree murder. To test our hypotheses, we conducted an ordinal regression with verdict being regressed on expert testimony, defendant race, and the interaction between expert testimony and defendant race. Results revealed no significant main effect of expert testimony, b = −0.04, OR = 0.96, 95% CI [0.64, 1.45], W 2 (1, N = 591) = 0.03, p = 0.861, or defendant race, b = −0.12, OR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.59, 1.34], W 2 (1, N = 591) = 0.33 p = 0.568. Additionally, the expert testimony by defendant race interaction was non-significant, b = 0.56, OR = 1.75, 95% CI [0.97, 3.15], W (1, N = 591) = 3.48, p = 0.062.

First-degree murder verdicts by defendant race and expert testimony.

Percentage of not guilty verdicts by charge.

Second-degree murder verdicts by defendant race and expert testimony.

Voluntary manslaughter verdicts by defendant race and expert testimony.

Because the watchdog hypothesis specifically involves White individuals ( Sargent and Bradfield, 2004 ), we re-ran our initial regression using only White participants ( N = 482). As before, we conducted an ordinal regression on verdict using expert testimony, defendant race, and the interaction as the predictor variables. Again, we observed no significant main effects of expert testimony, b = −0.26, OR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.49, 1.21], W 2 (1, N = 482) = 1.29, p = 0.257, or defendant race, b = −0.35, OR = 0.70, 95% CI [0.44, 1.11], W 2 (1, N = 482) = 2.26, p = 0.133. However, there was a significant interaction between expert testimony and defendant race, b = 0.93, OR = 2.56, 95% CI [1.33, 4.92], W 2 (1, N = 482) = 7.9, p = 0.005. We probed this interaction for White participants by running two separate ordinal regressions with expert testimony as the predictor, splitting the data file based on defendant race. Analyses indicated that for White jurors, there was no effect of expert testimony when the defendant was White, b = −0.26, OR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.49, 1.21], W 2 (1, N = 245) = 1.28, p = 0.258. In comparison, we observed a significant effect of expert testimony when the defendant was Black, b = 0.68, OR = 1.98, 95% CI [1.23, 3.17], W 2 (1, N = 237) = 8.04, p = 0.005. The odds of White jurors rendering a not guilty verdict (versus other verdict options) for the Black defendant were approximately twice as high when given expert testimony as compared to when no such testimony was presented.

Using the hmisc package ( Harrell, 2021 ) in R ( R Core Team, 2021 ), we conducted a post hoc sensitivity analysis to provide an estimate of the smallest effect size that we would have sufficient power (i.e., 80%) to detect. Analysis indicated that for an overall N of 590, our design had a power of.80 to detect an odds ratio of 1.52, which is equivalent to a “small” effect size under Cohen’s conventions (see Chen et al., 2010 ). Therefore, we appeared to be sufficiently powered to conduct our ordinal analyses.

Voluntariness of Confession

We conducted an exploratory analysis on participants’ perceptions of how voluntary the defendant’s confession was. We were interested in examining effects on voluntariness in particular because we felt this was a purer measure of jurors’ perceptions of the confession itself. In comparison, participants’ final verdicts could be influenced by a number of factors unrelated to the confession evidence (e.g., the circumstantial evidence presented at trial).

Overall, participants scored near the midpoint on their perceived voluntariness of the defendant’s confession ( M = 4.71, SD = 2.57). We ran a 2 × 2 ANOVA to test the degree to which defendant race and expert testimony influenced this rating. Results revealed a significant main effect for expert testimony [ F (1,586) = 4.76, p = 0.03, η 2 p = 0.008, w 2 p = 0.006]; participants who received expert testimony perceived the defendant’s confession to be less voluntary ( M = 4.48, SD = 2.50) than those who did not ( M = 4.94, SD = 2.62). The main effect for defendant race was not significant [ F (1,586) = 0.14, p = 0.71, partial η 2 = 0.001 w 2 p ≤ 0.001], nor was the interaction [ F (1,586) = 2.17, p = 0.14, η 2 p = 0.004, w 2 p = 0.002].

As above, we re-ran this analysis with only White participants. This test again revealed a small, significant main effect for expert testimony [ F (1,477) = 4.00, p = 0.046, η 2 p = 0.008, w 2 p = 0.006], qualified by a significant interaction between defendant race and expert testimony [ F (1,477) = 4.20, p = 0.041, η 2 p = 0.009, w 2 p = 0.007]; the main effect for defendant race was not significant [ F (1,477) = 0.46, p = 0.50, partial η 2 = 0.001, w 2 p ≤ 0.001]. To probe the interaction, we first compared the effects of expert testimony on voluntariness ratings by defendant race. Simple effects tests demonstrated that for those who read about a White defendant, voluntariness ratings did not differ significantly in the presence ( M = 4.61, SD = 2.45) or absence ( M = 4.60, SD = 2.66) of expert testimony, t (242) = −0.04, p = 0.98, d = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.25,0.24]. However, participants who read about a Black defendant were significantly less likely to perceive his confession as voluntary when they received expert testimony ( M = 4.29, SD = 2.52) as compared to when they did not ( M = 5.23, SD = 2.63), t (235) = 2.83, p = 0.005, d = 0.37, 95% CI [0.11,0.63]. See Figure 1 for a visual display of this relationship. When probing the interaction the other way, we did not find significant effects for defendant race in either the expert testimony present { t (240) = 1.01, p = 0.315, d = 0.13, 95% CI [−0.12,0.38]} or absent { t (237) = −1.86, p = 0.064, d = 0.24, 95% CI [−0.50,0.01]} conditions.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-12-699077-g001.jpg

Ratings of voluntariness of confession by defendant race and expert testimony for White participants.

The aim of this study was to explore the combined effects of defendant race and expert testimony on jurors’ decision-making in trials involving a recanted confession. In line with the watchdog hypothesis ( Sargent and Bradfield, 2004 ), when the defendant was Black, White jurors were significantly more likely to render a not guilty verdict when given expert testimony. In comparison, White jurors’ verdicts were not significantly influenced by expert testimony in conditions involving White defendants. This same pattern was found for perceptions of the confession’s voluntariness, although findings relating to the voluntariness measure require further confirmatory testing from future research.

Our results may demonstrate evidence of a sensitivity effect in situations involving a Black defendant and a confession. Given that jurors in the Black defendant condition convicted less often and perceived the confession as less voluntary, these jurors likely attended more to the expert testimony than did those in the White defendant condition. Doing so may have allowed the testimony to sensitize jurors to the issues related to the disputed confession (e.g., long period of time, minimization and maximization techniques employed, lack of independent knowledge of the crime, etc.). However, because we did not manipulate the strength of the confession, it is unclear whether the expert testimony truly sensitized jurors in these conditions. Instead, they may have simply become skeptical of all confession evidence. Given that earlier findings regarding expert testimony and confession evidence suggest that the mere presence of expert testimony (regardless of the presence of coercive interrogation tactics) could reduce reliance on confessions ( Woody and Forrest, 2009 ), this was an important first step in establishing the presence of a watchdog effect. Future research should extend the current study’s design with the inclusion of a confession quality (i.e., lower vs. higher number of coercive tactics present in the interrogation) manipulation. Doing so would allow for a better understanding of whether sensitivity or skepticism is occurring in these situations.

Because our sample was predominantly White, we predicted an overall similarity-leniency bias such that Black defendants would be more likely to be convicted than defendants who were White ( Devine and Caughlin, 2014 ). Contrary to predictions, there was no significant main effect of defendant race on jurors’ verdicts. Although this finding conflicts with research supporting the similarity-leniency hypothesis (e.g., Ugwuegbu, 1978 ; Sommers and Ellsworth, 2000 ; Devine and Caughlin, 2014 ), other research has also demonstrated null effects relating to defendant race (e.g., Braden-Maguire et al., 2005 ; Maeder et al., 2012 ; Yamamoto and Maeder, 2017 ).

There are a number of potential explanations for why we observed no significant overall effect of defendant race. According to the aversive racism framework ( Schweitzer and Nuñez, 2018 ), the influence of racial bias is greatest in ambiguous situations ( Dovidio and Gaertner , 1996 , 2000 , 2004 ). In the current study, the legal instructions likely removed some of the ambiguity concerning participants’ verdict decision, lessening the effect defendant race may have had ( Pfeifer and Ogloff, 1991 ). Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis observed out-group bias in studies involving property crimes or adult sexual assaults, but much smaller (or non-existent) effects in studies using violent cases ( Devine and Caughlin, 2014 ). Because our trial transcript involved a murder, future research should consider replicating the current study using other crimes, such as burglary.

Finally, our data were collected between June and December 2018. During this time, the police’s unjust treatment of Black individuals became a salient topic in the media (e.g., Carney, 2016 ; Lopez, 2018 ; Scott, 2018 ). Our participants may therefore have been cognizant of the potential for such discrimination, particularly because the defendant claimed that he was threatened and coerced by police during his interrogation. Previous research has found that White jurors’ bias against BIPOC defendants is minimized when racial issues are made salient during the trial (e.g., Cohn et al., 2009 ; Bucolo and Cohn, 2010 ). It is a strong possibility that cases involving alleged police misconduct are inherently race salient, leading jurors to correct for racial bias and resulting in a null effect of defendant race ( Sommers and Ellsworth, 2000 , 2001 ). It is important to note that following the death of George Floyd in May 2020, the topic of racial discrimination in the United States’ justice system received unprecedented attention and media coverage. We encourage researchers to replicate and extend these findings to see what effect these recent events may have had in this context.

Similar to our results concerning defendant race, we observed no significant main effect of expert testimony on jurors’ verdicts. This complements the work of Jones and Penrod (2016) , as well as Moffa and Platania (2007) , but contradicts a number of other studies that did observe an effect of expert testimony in trials involving recanted confessions ( Woody and Forrest, 2009 ; Blandon-Gitlin et al., 2011 ; Woestehoff and Meissner, 2016 ). Related research concerning jurors’ perceptions of secondary confessions has also observed no significant effect of expert testimony on verdicts ( Neuschatz et al., 2012 ; Maeder and Pica, 2014 ).

In comparison to our results concerning expert testimony and verdict, there was a significant main effect of expert testimony on perceived voluntariness of the confession. One explanation for this pattern may be that although expert testimony lowered jurors’ perceived voluntariness of the confession, they still viewed the confession itself as indicative of guilt. Researchers have used the fundamental attribution error to explain jurors’ reluctance to discount disputed confession (e.g., Kassin and Sukel, 1997 ; Kassin and Gudjonsson, 2005 ). In our study, jurors may indeed have perceived the confession as less voluntary following expert testimony, but they still may have believed that overall, the defendant confessed because he was guilty (rather than because of the situational factors present). In similar research, Kassin and Wrightsman (1981) found instructions on the unreliability of coerced confessions significantly decreased participants’ perceived voluntariness of the confession, but did not influence verdicts.

In their work, Sargent and Bradfield (2004) manipulated the strength of the defendant’s alibi as well as the strength of the prosecutor’s cross-examination 4 ; future research should continue to examine the watchdog hypothesis by manipulating other types of evidence and/or expert testimony (such as expert testimony concerning police use of force or eyewitness identifications). Because the watchdog effect has now been demonstrated using both direct evidence (i.e., defendant’s alibi) as well as trial-level phenomena (i.e., cross-examination and expert testimony), we tentatively predict that our observed effects would likely generalize to these other forms of evidence. Further, our results underscore the notion that there is a complex effect of race in the courtroom that goes beyond a simple similarity-leniency effect; we found White jurors to be more lenient to the racial outgroup when given expert testimony. As discussed above, it may be the case that, due to the increased public attention regarding racial discrimination in the legal system, the similarity-leniency effect is minimized (or outright reduced) in trials involving potential police misconduct. More work examining this issue, particularly sampling from BIPOC jurors, is needed to better understand these complexities. Based on these preliminary results, White jurors appear to either interpret or apply evidence differently depending upon the defendant’s race, ultimately leading to different verdict decisions. Specifically, our findings suggest that attorneys should particularly consider the use of expert testimony in trials involving a BIPOC defendant and a recanted confession.

Finally, although we found evidence to suggest a watchdog effect, there are other possible explanations for our findings. In our study, White participants may have been more likely to use expert testimony in their verdict decisions when the defendant is Black as opposed to White not because they are paying more attention to legally relevant factors (as per the watchdog hypothesis), but because they are looking for a reason to acquit the Black defendant. This may be in an attempt to establish non-racist credentials (e.g., Effron and Conway, 2015 ) – when evaluating a Black defendant, White participants may feel as though their moral standing is uncertain, and so make greater use of the expert testimony and subsequently acquit in order to demonstrate their egalitarianism. Future research could implement a detailed measure of comprehension of the expert’s testimony. This would reveal whether participants comprehend the information better when the defendant is Black, or whether they simply use the expert testimony as a reason to acquit the Black defendant.

Limitations

Our study’s methodology had a number of limitations. To begin, we used a written trial transcript, which limited ecological validity ( Wenger and Bornstein, 2006 ). However, existing literature suggests that presentation mode does not significantly affect mock jurors’ verdict decisions ( Bornstein, 1999 ; Pezdek et al., 2010 ). Furthermore, our participants were likely aware that their responses had no true consequences, which may have influenced our findings ( Bornstein and McCabe, 2005 ; Bornstein et al., 2017 ). Studying real jury trials would help to overcome this problem of consequentiality and may have led to different results. However, such a methodology would also introduce a host of additional issues regarding feasibility and internal validity. Like most jury research, we also only used a single trial transcript that had specific evidence and charges. Replications using additional cases would increase the generalizability of our results.

An additional ecological limitation of the current study is the lack of a deliberation component. Although research has demonstrated that the jury’s final verdict is often predicted from individual verdicts ( Kalven and Zeisel, 1966 ; Devine et al., 2007 ), other literature suggests that deliberation can influence jurors’ bias ( London and Nunez, 2000 ) and also affect jurors’ cognitive processes when trying to reach a decision ( Salerno and Diamond, 2010 ; Salerno et al., 2017 ). Sommers (2006) has further demonstrated that the racial composition of a jury can influence how jurors talk about race, which may be relevant to our results as our study involved a Black defendant in half of the conditions. Therefore, future research examining the watchdog hypothesis should likely involve a deliberation component.

Because the study was conducted online on MTurk, there was a lack of general control over the environment in which participants responded, which may have produced environmental confounds. However, we implemented manipulation and attention checks to ascertain data quality (e.g., Peer et al., 2014 ). Using MTurk also allowed for recruitment from a nationwide community sample (rather than relying on an undergraduate sample from a single university), which likely increased the generalizability of our results ( Baker et al., 2016 ). Regardless, we still had a fairly racially homogenous sample, as response rates from BIPOC participants were low. We were therefore unable to do any proper comparisons based on juror race. Although the watchdog hypothesis focuses specifically on White jurors, future research needs to be conducted that explicitly examines BIPOC jurors’ perceptions in the courtroom.

Our study examined the role of defendant race and the influence of expert testimony in the context of trials involving recanted confessions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the interactive effects of these variables. For White jurors, we observed an interaction between defendant race and the presence of expert testimony. There was no significant effect of expert testimony on verdict when the defendant was White, but White jurors were significantly less likely to find the Black defendant guilty (and perceive his confession as voluntary) when presented with expert testimony concerning false confessions. These findings support the existence of the watchdog hypothesis ( Sargent and Bradfield, 2004 ), such that White jurors are more receptive to legally relevant evidence when the defendant is Black. To gain a stronger understanding of when this effect is elicited, future research should replicate the current study using other types of evidence and expert testimony.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Carleton University Research Ethics Board-B (CUREB-B) Carleton University. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

LE and EM contributed to the conception and design of the study and conducted the data analysis. LE organized the data collection and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. EM wrote the sections of the manuscript. Both authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Funding. This research received funding from the American-Psychology Law Society’s Diversity Research Award.

1 The Innocence Project includes false admissions and other forms of self-incrimination in their definition of false confessions.

2 The National Registry of Exonerations defines a false confession as “a statement made to law enforcement at any point during the proceedings which was interpreted or presented by law enforcement as an admission of participation in or presence at the crime, even if the statement was not presented at trial. A statement is not a confession if it was made to someone other than law enforcement. A statement that is not at odds with the defense is not a confession. A guilty plea is not a confession.” In comparison, the Innocence Project’s definition includes false admissions and other forms of self-incrimination in their definition of false confessions.

3 Sixty-two participants failed the manipulation check concerning defendant race, while 184 participants failed the manipulation check concerning the content of the expert’s testimony. For attention checks, participants were instructed to select a particular response. Twenty-six participants failed the first attention check, 29 participants failed the second attention check, and 33 failed the third attention check.

4 In the “weak” cross-examination condition, participants read a case summary where the court reporters indicated the prosecution had presented ineffective cross-examinations of the defense witnesses. In the “strong” condition, the case summary described the prosecution as presenting an effective cross-examination that diminished the defense witnesses’ credibility.

Alhabash S., Hales K., Baek J. H., Oh H. J. (2014). Effects of race, visual anonymity, and social category salience on online dating outcomes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 35 22–32. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.016 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Appleby S. C., Kassin S. M. (2016). When self-report trumps science: effects of confessions, DNA, and prosecutorial theories on perceptions of guilt. Psychol. Public Policy Law 22 127–140. 10.1037/law0000080 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Baker M. A., Fox P., Wingrove T. (2016). Crowdsourcing as a forensic psychology research tool. Am. J. For. Psychol. 34 37–50. [ Google Scholar ]
Bertrand M., Mullainathan S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. Am. Econ. Rev. 94 991–1013. 10.1257/0002828042002561 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Blandon-Gitlin I., Sperry K., Leo R. (2011). Jurors believe interrogation tactics are not likely to elicit false confessions: will expert witness testimony inform them otherwise? Psychol. Crime Law 17 239–260. 10.1080/10683160903113699 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bodenhausen G. V., Wyer R. S., Jr. (1985). Effects of stereotypes on decision making and information-processing strategies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48 267–282. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bornstein B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: is the jury still out? Law Hum. Behav. 23 75–91. 10.1023/A:1022326807441 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bornstein B. H., Golding J. M., Neuschatz J., Kimbrough C., Reed K., Magyarics C., et al. (2017). Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: a meta-analysis. Law Hum. Behav. 41 13–28. 10.1037/lhb0000223 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bornstein B. H., McCabe S. G. (2005). Jurors of the absurd? The role of consequentiality in jury simulation research. Florida State Univ. Law Rev. 32 443–467. [ Google Scholar ]
Braden-Maguire J., Sigal J., Perrino C. S. (2005). Battered women who kill: variables affecting simulated jurors’ verdicts. J. Fam. Violence 20 403–408. 10.1007/s10896-005-7801-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bucolo D. O., Cohn E. S. (2010). Playing the race card: making race salient in defence opening and closing statements. Legal Criminol. Psychol. 15 293–303. 10.1348/135532508X400824 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Burnham M. J., Le Y. K., Piedmont R. L. (2018). Who is Mturk? Personal characteristics and sample consistency of these online workers. Ment. Health Relig. Culture 21 934–944. 10.1080/13674676.2018.1486394 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Carney N. (2016). All lives matter, but so does race: black lives matter and the evolving role of social media. Hum. Soc. 40 180–199. 10.1177/0160597616643868 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chen H., Cohen P., Chen S. (2010). How big is a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes of odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput. 39 860–864. 10.1080/03610911003650383 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chojnacki D. E., Cicchini M. D., White L. T. (2008). An empirical basis for the admission of expert testimony on false confessions. Arizona State Law J. 40 1–46. [ Google Scholar ]
Cohn E. S., Bucolo D., Pride M., Sommers S. R. (2009). Reducing White juror bias: the role of race salience and racial attitudes. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 39 1953–1973. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00511.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Costanzo M., Shaked-Schroer N., Vinson K. (2010). Juror beliefs about police interrogations, false confessions, and expert testimony. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 7 231–247. 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01177.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cutler B. L., Penrod S. D., Dexter H. R. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law Hum. Behav. 13 311–332. 10.1007/BF01067032 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Devine D. J., Buddenbaum J., Houp S., Stolle D. P., Studebaker N. (2007). Deliberation quality: a preliminary examination in criminal juries. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 4 273–303. 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00089.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Devine D. J., Caughlin D. E. (2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychol. Public Policy Law 20 109–134. 10.2466/pr0.1997.81.2.679 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dovidio J. F., Gaertner S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychol. Sci. 11 315–319. 10.1111/1467-9280.00262 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dovidio J. F., Gaertner S. L. (1996). Affirmative action, unintentional racial biases, and intergroup relations. J. Soc. Issue. 52 51–75. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1996.tb01848.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dovidio J. F., Gaertner S. L. (2004). “ Aversive racism ,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , Vol. 36 ed. Zanna M. P. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press; ), 1–52. [ Google Scholar ]
Drizin S., Leo R. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. N. Carolina Law Rev. 82 891–1007. [ Google Scholar ]
Duru N. J. (2003). The Central Park Five, the Scottsboro Boys, and the myth of the bestial black man. Cardozo Law Rev. 25 1315–1366. [ Google Scholar ]
Effron D. A., Conway P. (2015). When virtue leads to villainy: advances in research on moral self-licensing. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 6 32–35. [ Google Scholar ]
ForsterLee R., ForsterLee L., Horowitz I. A., King E. (2006). The effects of defendant race, victim race, and juror gender on evidence processing in a murder trial. Behav. Sci. Law 24 179–198. 10.1002/bsl.675 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fulero S. M. (2010). Admissibility of expert testimony based on the Grisso and Gudjonsson scales in disputed confession cases. J. Psychiatry Law 38 193–214. 10.1177/009318531003800109 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Garcia D., Abascal M. (2016). Colored perceptions: racially distinctive names and assessments of skin color. Am. Behav. Sci. 60 420–441. 10.1177/0002764215613395 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gomes D. M., Stenstrom D. M., Calvillo D. P. (2016). Examining the judicial decision to substitute credibility instructions for expert testimony on confessions. Legal Criminol. Psychol. 21 319–331. 10.1111/lcrp.12068 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gudjonsson G. H. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
Harrell F. (2021). HmiscL Version 4.5-0. [ Google Scholar ]
Henderson K. S., Levett L. M. (2016). Can expert testimony sensitize jurors to variations in confession evidence? Law Hum. Behav. 40 638–649. 10.1037/lhb0000204 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Henkel L. A. (2008). Jurors’ reactions to recanted confessions: do the defendant’s personal and dispositional characteristics play a role? Psychol. Crime Law 14 565–578. 10.1080/10683160801995247 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Innocence Project (2021). Research Resources. Available online at: https://innocenceproject.org/research-resources/ [ Google Scholar ]
Jones A. M., Penrod S. (2016). Can expert testimony sensitize jurors to coercive interrogation tactics? J. For. Psychol. Pract. 16 393–409. 10.1080/15228932.2016.1232029 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2020). Available online at: https://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/juryinstructions.htm (accessed January, 2019). [ Google Scholar ]
Kalven H., Jr., Zeisel H. (1966). The American Jury. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Kassin S. M. (2008). False confessions: causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 17 249–253. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00584.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kassin S. M., Goldstein C. C., Savitsky K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: on the dangers of presuming guilt. Law Hum. Behav. 27 : 187 . 10.1023/a:1022599230598 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kassin S. M., Gudjonsson G. H. (2005). True crimes, false confessions. Sci. Am. Mind 16 24–31. [ Google Scholar ]
Kassin S. M., Kiechel K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychol. Sci. 7 125–128. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00344.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kassin S. M., McNall K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions. Law Hum. Behav. 15 233–251. 10.1007/BF01061711 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kassin S. M., Meissner C. A., Norwick R. J. (2005). “I’d know a false confession if I saw one”: a comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law Hum. Behav. 29 : 211 . 10.1007/s10979-005-2416-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kassin S. M., Neumann K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: an experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law Hum. Behav. 21 : 469 . 10.1023/A:1024871622490 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kassin S. M., Sommers S. R. (1997). Inadmissible testimony, instructions to disregard, and the jury: substantive versus procedural considerations. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23 1046–1054. 10.1177/01461672972310005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kassin S. M., Sukel H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: an experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law Hum. Behav. 21 27–46. 10.1023/A:1024814009769 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kassin S. M., Wrightsman L. S. (1981). Coerced confessions, judicial instruction, and mock juror verdicts. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 11 489–506. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1981.tb00838.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
King L., Snook B. (2009). Peering inside a Canadian interrogation room: an examination of the Reid model of interrogation, influence tactics, and coercive strategies. Crim. Just. Behav. 36 674–694. 10.1177/0093854809335142 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Leo R., Ofshe R. (1998). The consequences of false confessions: deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 88 429–496. 10.2307/1144288 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Leo R. A., Davis D. (2010). From false confession to wrongful conviction: seven psychological processes. J. Psychiatry Law 38 9–56. 10.1177/009318531003800103 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Levett L. M., Kovera M. B. (2008). The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence. Law Hum. Behav. 32 363–374. 10.1007/s10979-007-9113-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Levine T. R., Kim R. K., Blair J. P. (2010). (In) accuracy at detecting true and false confessions and denials: an initial test of a projected motive model of veracity judgments. Hum. Commun. Res. 36 82–102. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01369.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lieberman J. D., Carrell C. A., Miethe T. D., Krauss D. A. (2008). Gold versus platinum. Psychol. Public Policy Law 14 27–62. 10.1037/1076-8971.14.1.27 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lopez G. (2018). There Are Huge Racial Disparities in How US Police Use Force. Washington, DC: Vox Media. [ Google Scholar ]
London K., Nunez N. (2000). The effect of jury deliberations on jurors’ propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence. J. Appl. Psychol. 85 932–939. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.932 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Maeder E., Dempsey J., Pozzulo J. (2012). Behind the veil of juror decision making: testing the effects of Muslim veils and defendant race in the courtroom. Crim. Justice Behav. 39 666–678. 10.1177/0093854812436478 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Maeder E. M., Pica E. (2014). Secondary confessions: the influence (or lack thereof) of incentive size and scientific expert testimony on jurors’ perceptions of informant testimony. Law Hum. Behav. 38 560–568. 10.1037/lhb0000106 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mitchell T. L., Haw R. M., Pfeifer J. E., Meissner C. A. (2005). Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: a meta-analytic review of defendant treatment. Law Hum. Behav. 29 621–637. 10.1007/s10979-005-8122-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Moffa M. S., Platania J. (2007). Effects of expert testimony and interrogation tactics on perceptions of confessions. Psychol. Rep. 100 563–570. 10.2466/pr0.100.2.563-570 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
National Registry of Exonerations (2020). Exonerations in 2019. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Law School. [ Google Scholar ]
Neuschatz J. S., Wilkinson M. L., Goodsell C. A., Wetmore S. A., Quinlivan D. S., Jones N. J. (2012). Secondary confessions, expert testimony, and unreliable testimony. J. Police Crim. Psychol. 27 179–192. 10.1007/s11896-012-9102-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Paolacci G., Chandler J. (2014). Inside the Turk: understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 23 184–188. 10.1177/0963721414531598 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Paolacci G., Chandler J., Ipeirotis P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment Decis. Making 5 411–419. [ Google Scholar ]
Pezdek K., Avila-Mora E., Sperry K. (2010). Does trial presentation medium matter in jury simulation research? Evaluating the effectiveness of eyewitness expert testimony. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 24 673–690. 10.1002/acp.1578 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Peer E., Vosgerau J., Acquisti A. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods 46 1023–1031. 10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pfeifer J. E., Ogloff J. R. (1991). Ambiguity and guilt determinations: a modern racism perspective 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21 1713–1725. [ Google Scholar ]
Pickel K. L., Warner T. C., Miller T. J., Barnes Z. T. (2013). Conceptualizing defendants as minorities leads mock jurors to make biased evaluations in retracted confession cases. Psychol. Public Policy Law 19 : 56 . 10.1037/a0029308 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
R Core Team (2021). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [ Google Scholar ]
Ratcliff J. J., Lassiter G. D., Jager V. M., Lindberg M. J., Elek J. K., Hasinski A. E. (2010). The hidden consequences of racial salience in videotaped interrogations and confessions. Psychol. Public Policy Law 16 : 200 . 10.1037/a0018482 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Redlich A. D., Summers A., Hoover S. (2010). Self-reported false confessions and false guilty pleas among offenders with mental illness. Law Hum. Behav. 34 79–90. 10.1007/s10979-009-9194-8 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Salerno J. M., Bottoms B. L., Peter-Hagene L. C. (2017). Individual versus group decision making: jurors’ reliance on central and peripheral information to evaluate expert testimony. PLoS One 12 : e0183580 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0183580 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Salerno J. M., Diamond S. S. (2010). The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 17 174–179. 10.3758/PBR.17.2.174 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sargent M. J., Bradfield A. L. (2004). Race and information processing in criminal trials: does the defendant’s race affect how the facts are evaluated? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30 995–1008. 10.1177/0146167204265741 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Scott E. (2018). Only One-Third of African Americans Say They Have Confidence in the Police. Killings Like Alton Sterling’s are Part of the Reason. Washington, DC: Washington Post. [ Google Scholar ]
Schweitzer K., Nuñez N. (2018). What evidence matters to jurors? The prevalence and importance of different homicide trial evidence to mock jurors. Psychiatry Psychol. Law 25 437–451. 10.1080/13218719.2018.1437666 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sommers S. R. (2006). On racial diversity and group decision making: identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90 597–612. 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.597 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sommers S. R., Ellsworth P. C. (2000). Race in the courtroom: perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26 1367–1379. 10.1177/0146167200263005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sommers S. R., Ellsworth P. C. (2001). White juror bias: an investigation of prejudice against Black defendants in the American courtroom. Psychol. Public Policy Law 7 : 201 . 10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.201 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sommers S. R., Kassin S. M. (2001). On the many impacts of inadmissible testimony: selective compliance, need for cognition, and the overcorrection bias. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27 1368–1377. 10.1177/01461672012710012 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Struckman-Johnson C., Miller M. G., Struckman-Johnson D. (2008). Effects of Native American race, intoxication, and crime severity on judgments of guilt. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 38 1981–1992. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00376.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tajfel H., Turner J. C. (1986). “ The social identity theory of intergroup behavior ,” in Psychology of Intergroup Relations , eds Worchel S., Austin W. (Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall; ). [ Google Scholar ]
Ugwuegbu D. C. E. (1978). Racial and evidential factors in juror attribution of legal responsibility. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 15 133–146. 10.1016/0022-1031(79)90025-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
United States Census Bureau (2019). ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates. Available online at: https://data.census.gov/ [ Google Scholar ]
Watson S., Appiah O., Thornton C. G. (2011). The effect of name on pre-interview impressions and occupational stereotypes: the case of black sales job applicants. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 41 2405–2420. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00822.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wenger A. A., Bornstein B. H. (2006). The effects of victim’s substance use and relationship closeness on mock jurors’ judgments in an acquaintance rape case. Sex Roles 54 547–555. 10.1007/s11199-006-9014-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Widner D., Chicoine S. (2011). It’s all in the name: employment discrimination against Arab Americans. Sociol. Forum 26 806–823. 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2011.01285.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Woestehoff S. A., Meissner C. A. (2016). Juror sensitivity to false confession risk factors: dispositional vs. situational attributions for a confession. Law Hum. Behav. 40 : 564 . 10.1037/lhb0000201 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Woody W. D., Forrest K. D. (2009). Effects of false-evidence ploys and expert testimony on jurors’ verdicts, recommended sentences, and perceptions of confession evidence. Behav. Sci. Law 27 333–360. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Yamamoto S., Maeder E. M. (2017). Defendant and juror race in a necessity case: an ultimate attribution error. J. Ethn. Crim. Justice 15 270–284. 10.1080/15377938.2017.1347542 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Media Center

Similarity Hypothesis

The basic idea, theory, meet practice.

TDL is an applied research consultancy. In our work, we leverage the insights of diverse fields—from psychology and economics to machine learning and behavioral data science—to sculpt targeted solutions to nuanced problems.

Consider the closest friends you meet while backpacking abroad. You likely share many similarities; perhaps a thrill for spontaneity, hobbies, appreciation for culture, music preferences, or food choices. During the trip, you find yourself effortlessly interacting with other backpackers: sharing a relatively-unknown scenic route, a local exhibition to visit, or the best bed and breakfast in town. We often relate and empathize easily with similar individuals – this is a result of the similarity hypothesis.

The similarity hypothesis suggests that we tend to be drawn towards those who are similar to ourselves. Similarities can refer to shared attitudes and values, as well as political opinions, cultural background, or even minute details like posture. 1

The experience of interacting with similar individuals jumpstarts cognitive processing, like learning, memory, attention, and reasoning. An aspiring musician might remember all the lyrics to their favorite band’s albums. An employee might pick up skills more quickly when assisted by a mentor they admire or identify with. Even when it comes to making comparisons with others, we tend to look for individuals who share similar attitudes and beliefs because it can be difficult to make accurate comparisons when others are too different from us. 2

Why do we tend to be drawn towards individuals who share similar attitudes and values?

Similarity Hypothesis: A hypothesis which states that we tend to be attracted towards individuals who share similar important traits, such as attitudes and values.

Cognitive Processing: A general term to describe any mental function involved in acquiring, storing, interpreting and manipulating information. These functions can be conscious or unconscious, such as attention, memory storage, learning, and reasoning.

Empathy: Understanding an individual from their point of view and experiencing that individual’s feelings, thoughts and perceptions.

In 1954, Leon Festinger proposed in his social comparison theory: when individuals are uncertain of their abilities and opinions, they tend to make comparisons with other similar individuals to assess the accuracy of their own opinion. Festinger’s influential social comparison theory introduced the similarity hypothesis. Since its introduction in A Theory of Social Comparison Processes , a large amount of evidence has supported the hypothesis. 3

Festinger’s hypothesis has been used to explain phenomena in a diverse array of fields, from political science to marketing. For instance, in the 1971 The Attraction Paradigm , psychologist Donn Byrne introduced the similarity-attraction theory. Byrne’s theory was based on the similarity hypothesis. He suggested that individuals who share similar “important attitudes” (opinions on family and values) are generally more likely to be attracted to each other, compared to individuals who share similar “less important” attitudes (opinions on a specific type of sink). 4 This holds for friendships as well as romantic partners. Byrne further outlined that individuals associate with those who have similar personality characteristics, such as self-esteem, optimism, and conscientiousness.

According to Byrne, personality similarity has a key role to play in the longevity and happiness of a marriage. 5 Byrne’s similarity-attraction theory stated that individuals are generally romantically attracted to others who share similar physical characteristics and levels of physical attractiveness. Byrne’s work on similarity-attraction was so influential that further research has supported his theory, with individuals’ preference for similarity being demonstrated in various other aspects such as social habits and socioeconomic status. 5

The similarity hypothesis then made its way into the field of economics and decision-making in Amos Tversky’s 1972 book, Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice . 6 Tversky influenced choice theory in economics by applying the similarity hypothesis to decision-making, changing the way modern economists approached the field. Based on the hypothesis, he suggested that when a new product enters a market, it will take more demand from the share of a similar product than a dissimilar one. This has important implications for brands: when creating a new line of products, they should make it as dissimilar as possible from their current offering to prevent market cannibalization. Tversky’s work influenced marketing managers, who started adopting his use of the similarity hypothesis to help make marketing entry decisions. 7

Leon Festinger

An influential American social psychologist, most renowned for his work on social comparison theory in his 1954 book, A Theory of Social Comparison Processes . Festinger introduced the similarity hypothesis in this book, which has been followed by an enormous amount of data which has provided evidence to support the hypothesis. Several of Festinger’s theories and research also renounced previously dominant behaviorist views of social psychology.

An American psychologist and influential contributor of foundational theory in interpersonal attraction. His work on similarity-attraction theory, based on the similarity hypothesis, was groundbreaking for exploring the relationship between similar attitudes and attraction. Byrne was also an early contributor on the psychology of human sexuality. 8

Amos Tversky

One of the founders of behavioral science who helped revolutionize the field of economics and decision-making. Tversky was an influential psychologist who applied the similarity hypothesis to decision-making and choice theory in economics. Along with Daniel Kahneman , Tversky was also a pioneer in loss aversion and prospect theory .

Consequences

When it comes to attraction, Byrne’s similarity-attraction theory remains relevant today as it provides reassurance that an individual is not alone in their belief. Being attracted to individuals with similar attitudes also enables one to more accurately predict the other’s behaviors in different scenarios, providing an insight into the other’s predilections and “pet peeves” based on similarity. 5

Similarly, when we empathize with a target, such as a novel, our enhanced cognitive processing enables us to facilitate reading comprehension. Our reading accelerates and our memory increases. Likewise, when we fail to empathize with a target, such as a film, we evoke a perception of dissimilarity. This creates the opposite effect, and our cognitive processing is inhibited: we lose focus easily, finding it difficult to recall the plot of the film. 1

Our enhanced cognitive processing is a result of empathy, which arises from our perception of similarity. This affects the way we interact with other individuals, as the perception of similarity can implicitly evoke empathy between two individuals. The perception of similarity is the reason why an employee may be able to learn new techniques more quickly when assisted by a mentor they empathize with.

Understanding the similarity hypothesis can allow us to better design inclusive educational curricula, particularly in scenarios where it is important to understand individuals or experiences which are not necessarily similar to most learners. This can be especially useful in cross-cultural education, history, minority education, and special-needs classes. 1 Applying the similarity hypothesis in these fields of education can help overcome the effort involved in understanding experiences or individuals which are dissimilar.

Controversies

Despite the repeated evidence upholding the similarity hypothesis, one criticism is that individuals frequently seek novelty and difference, with such experiences providing just as much certainty when it comes to self-evaluation. 3

Scholars who disagree with the similarity-attraction theory tend to adopt the complementarity view of attraction. This view states that individuals are more likely to prefer partners who have attributes that are complementary, rather than those who possess replicating attributes. This can be seen when an individual with a certain perceived negative attribute, such as impatience, is more attracted to someone who does not possess that same attribute. The complementarity view of attraction suggests that individuals prefer not to be reminded of their faults by being with someone similar, and therefore they are more attracted to those who will complement and bring out the best in them. 5

Emerging studies are also starting to define more clearly that it is perceived similarity, rather than actual similarity, that influences attraction. A 2012 study by American psychologists at Texas A&M and Northwestern University found that, unlike previous findings, actual similarity did not predict romantic attraction as effectively as previously thought. 9

There are alternative views when addressing how the similarity hypothesis influences opinion comparisons between individuals. Some argue that comparisons with other similar individuals depend on the type of opinion being evaluated. A study in 2000 by Jerry Suls, René Martin, and Ladd Wheeler highlights results which suggest that we prefer comparing with other similar individuals when it comes to the evaluation of preferences. Think about how you are more likely to care about what your best friend thinks of your outfit, compared to the Lyft driver who dropped you off this morning. In contrast, other studies have suggested that we prefer to compare ourselves with dissimilar individuals when it comes to belief assessment, 3 such as evaluating whether a certain statement or proposition is true.

The effects of the similarity hypothesis on memory retrieval.

In 2015, Hidetsugu Komeda conducted a study to observe memory retrieval in typically developing (TD) individuals and individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The similarity hypothesis predicts that individuals with ASD will be able to easily retrieve other individuals with ASD from their memory. Participants were carefully selected and read 24 stories, before completing a recognition task. The results showed that ASD individuals demonstrated the same level of accuracy as TD individuals, but memory-retrieval patterns between the two groups were different. 1

Individuals with ASD were able to retrieve ASD-consistent stories more easily than ASD-inconsistent stories. TD individuals were also able to retrieve TD-consistent stories more easily than ASD-protagonist stories. These results are consistent with the similarity hypothesis, suggesting that individuals with ASD characteristics are able to help other ASD individuals due to empathy arising from their similarities. 1

Tree Testing

Service Blueprints

similarity leniency hypothesis definition quizlet

Cognitive Walkthrough

Deep Learning

Eager to learn about how behavioral science can help your organization?

Get new behavioral science insights in your inbox every month..

Defendant-juror similarity and mock joror judgments

Published: December 1995
Volume 19 , pages 545–567, ( 1995 )

Cite this article

Norbert L. Kerr 1 ,
Robert W. Hymes 2 ,
Alonzo B. Anderson 3 &
James E. Weathers

576 Accesses

120 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

It was hypothesized that joror-defendant similarity would lead to greater leniency toward a criminal defendant when the evidence against that defendant was weak or inconclusive; but when evidence was strong, it was expected that this relationship would be reversed. In Study 1, religious similarity was found to be simply and positively related to evaluation of the defendant and leniency, a relationship unaffected by the strength of evidence. This pattern of results was attributed to (a) insufficiently strong evidence against the defendant and (b) the lack of anticipated jury deliberation, problems addressed in Study 2. In that study, when evidence was strong against the defendant, juror-defendant racial similarity did increase the likelihood of conviction, but only when jurors anticipated being in the racial minority in their jury. Implications of the findings for psychological theory and for voir dire were discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Evaluating Others If They Stand Up for Their Moral Convictions, and Evaluating Ourselves If We Don't Stand Up

Florien M. Cramwinckel, Kees van den Bos & Eric van Dijk

Perceiving racial hate crimes: a power-relation perspective

Chenghui Zhang

Amato, P. R. (1979). Juror-defendant similarity and the assessment of guilt in politically motivated crimes. Australian Journal of Psychology, 31 , 79–88.

Google Scholar

Bailey, F. L., & Rothblatt, H. B. (1985). Successful techniques for criminal trials . Rochester, NY: Lawyers Co-Operative.

Baldus, D. C., Woodworth, G., & Pulaski, C. A., Jr. (1990). Equal justice and the death penalty: A legal and empirical analysis . Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Batson v. Kentucky (1986). United States Supreme Court Reports, 476 , 79.

Belli, M. (1963). Modern trials (abridged ed.). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Bernard, J. L. (1979). Interaction between the race of the defendant and that of the jurors in determining verdicts. Law and Psychology Review, 5 , 103–111.

Bodenhausen, G. V., & Wyer, R. S. (1985). Effects of stereotypes on decision making and information-processing strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 , 267–282.

PubMed Google Scholar

Bowers, W., & Pierce, G. (1980). Arbitrariness and discrimination under post- Furman Statutes. Crime and Delinquency, 26 , 563–635.

Bowers, W. J., Pierce, G. L., & McDevitt, J. F. (1984). Legal homicide: Death as punishment in America , 1864–1982. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1979). Use of the simulation method in the study of jury behavior: Some methodological considerations. Law and Human Behavior, 3 , 107–119.

Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1982). Methodological considerations in the study of the psychology of the courtroom. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 287–324). New York: Academic Press.

Bray, R. M., & Noble, A. (1978). Authoritarianism and decisions of mock jurors: Evidence of jury bias and group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 , 1424–1430.

Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86 , 397–324.

Bullock, H. A. (1961). Significance of the racial factor in the length of prison sentences. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 52 , 411–417.

Busch, F. (1959). Law and tactics in jury trials (Vol. 1). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm . New York: Academic Press.

Byrne, D., Clore, G. L., & Smeaton, G. (1986). The attraction hypothesis: Do similar attitudes affect anything? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 , 1167–1170.

Byrne, D., & Wong, J. T. (1962). Racial prejudice, interpersonal attraction, and assumed similarity of attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65 , 246–253.

Chaikin, A. L., & Darley, J. M. (1973). Victim or perpetrator: Defensive attribution of responsibility and the need for order and justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25 , 268–273.

Cooper, J. & Jones, E. E. (1969). Opinion divergence as a strategy to avoid being miscast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13 , 23–30.

Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96 , 608–630.

Dane, F. C., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1982). Effects of defendants' and victims' characteristics on jurors' verdicts. In N. L. Kerr, & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 83–118) New York: Academic Press.

Davis, J. H., Bray, R. M., & Holt, R. (1977). The empirical study of decision processes in juries: A Critical review. In J. Tapp & F. Levine (Eds.), Law, justice, and the individual in society (pp. 326–361). New York: Holt.

Dodge, L. (1990). Death penalty sentencing (Report No. B-236876). Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.

Duncan, B. L. (1976). Differential social perception and attribution of intergroup violence: Testing the lower limits of stereotyping of Blacks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 , 621–634.

Field, H. S. (1979). Rape trials and jurors' decisions: A psycholegal analysis of the effects of victim, defendant, and case characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 3 , 261–284.

Feinberg, S. (1970). The analysis of multidimensional contingency tables. Ecology, 51 , 419–433.

Fitzgerald, R., & Ellsworth, P. (1984). Due process vs. crime control: Death qualification and jury attitudes. Law and Human Behavior, 8 , 31–51.

Foley, L. A. (1993). A psychological view of the legal system . Madison, WS: Brown & Benchmark.

Foley, L. A., & Rasche, C. E. (1979). The effect of race on sentence, actual time served. and final disposition of female offenders. In J. A. Conley (Ed.), Theory and research in criminal justice: Current perspectives . Cincinnati: Anderson.

Fukurai, H., Butler, E., & Krooth, R. (1992). Race and the jury . New York: Plenum.

Fulero, S. M., & Penrod, S. D. (1990). Attorney jury selection folklore: What do they think and how can psychologists help? Forensic Reports, 3 , 233–259.

Gerard, H. B., & Hoyt, M. F. (1974). Distinctiveness of social categorization and attitude toward ingroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29 , 836–842.

Gerard, J. B., & Terry, T. R. (1970). Discrimination against Negroes in the administration of criminal law in Missouri. Washington State University Law Quarterly , 415–437.

Gerbasi, K. C., & Zuckerman, M. (April, 1975). An experimental investigation of jury biasing factors. Paper presented at the meetings of the Eastern Psychological Association. New York City.

Gobert, J. J., & Jordan, W. E. (1990). Jury selection: The law, art, and science of selecting a jury (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Golash, D. (1992). Race, fairness, and jury selection. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10 , 155–177.

Gordon, R. A. (1993). The effect of strong versus weak evidence on the assessment of race stereotypic and race nonstereotypic crimes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23 , 734–749.

Griffitt, W., & Jackson, T. (1973). Simulated jury decisions: The influence of jury-defendant attitude similarity-dissimilarity. Social Behavior and Personality, 1 , 1–7.

Gross, S. R., & Mauro, R. (1989). Death and discrimination: Racial disparities in criminal sentencing . Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Hans, V. P. (1992). Jury decision making. In D. K. Kagehiro & W. S. Laufer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and law (pp. 56–76), New York: Springer-Verlag.

Hans, V. P., & Vidmar, N. (1986). Judging the jury . New York: Plenum.

Harvey, J. H., Harris, B., & Barnes, R. (1975). Actor-observer differences in the perceptions of responsibility and freedom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32 , 22–28.

Howard, J. A., & Rothbart, M. (1980). Social categorization and memory for ingroup and outgroup behavion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 , 301–310.

Jackson, L. A., & Hymes, R. W. (1985). Gender and social categorization: Familiarity and ingroup polarization in recall and evaluation. Journal of Social Psychology, 125 , 81–88.

Johnson, S. L. (1985). Black innocence and the white jury. Michigan Law Review, 83 , 1611–1708.

Jones, E. E., & deCharms, R. (1957). Changes in social perception as a function of the personal relevance of behavior. Sociometry, 20 , 75–85.

Jordan, W. E. (1980). Jury selection . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jussim, L., Coleman, L. M. & Lerch, L. (1987). The nature of stereotypes: A comparison and integration of three theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 , 536–546.

Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H., The American jury . Boston: Little Brown.

Kauffman, R. A., & Ryckman, R. M. (1979). Effects of locus-of-control, outcome severity, and attitudinal similarity of defendant on attributions of criminal responsibilities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5 , 340–343.

Keeton, R. E. (1973). Trial tactics and methods (2nd ed.), Boston: Little, Brown.

Kerr, N. L. (1978). Severity of prescribed penalty and mock jurors' verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 , 1431–1442.

Klein, K., & Creech, B. (1982). Race, rape and bias: Distortion of prior odds and meanings changes. Basic and applied social psychology, 3 , 21–33.

LaFree, G. D. (1980). The effect of sexual stratification by race on official reactions to rape. American Sociological Review, 45 , 842–854.

LaFree, G. D., Reskin, B. F., & Visher, C. A. (1985). Jurors' responses to victims' behavior and legal issues in sexual assault trials. Social Problems, 32 , 389–407.

Lauderdale, P., Smith-Cunnien, P., Parker, J., & Inverarity, J. (1984). External threat and the definition of deviance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 , 1058–1068.

Lewin, K. (1951). Problems of research in psychology. In Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (pp. 155–169). New York: Harper & Brothers.

Lipton, J. P. (1983). Racism in the jury box: The Hispanic defendant. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 5 , 275–290.

Lowe, C. A., & Medway, F. J. (1976). Effects of valence, severity, and relevance on responsibility and dispositional attribution. Journal of Personality, 44 , 518–538.

Lunney, G. H. (1970). Using analysis of variance with a dichotomous dependent variable: An empirical study. Journal of Educational Measurement, 7 , 263–269.

Marques, J. M. (1990). The black sheep effect: Outgroup homogeneity in social comparison settings. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 131–151). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Marques, J. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards ingroup members in inter- and intragroup situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18 , 287–292.

Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J. P. (1988). The black sheep effect: Extremity of judgments towards in-group members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18 , 1–16.

McKillip, J., & Posavac, E. J. (1975). Judgments of responsibility for an accident. Journal of Personality, 43 , 248–265.

Medway, F. J., & Lowe, C. A. (1975). Effects of outcome valence and severity on attribution of responsibility. Psychological Reports, 36 , 239–246.

Mettee, D. R., & Riskin, J. (1974). Size of defeat and liking for superior and similar ability competitors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10 , 333–351.

Mettee, D. R., & Wilkins, P. C. (1972). When similarity ‘hurts’: Effects of perceived ability and a humorous blunder upon interpersonal attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22 , 246–258.

Mitchell, H. E., & Byrne, D. (1973). The defendant's dilemma: Effects of jurors' attitudes and authoritarian judicial decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25 , 123–129.

Monahan, J., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). The psychology of law, American Review of Psychology, 33 , 441–475.

Mummendey, A., & Simon, B. (1989). Better or just different? III: The impact of comparison dimension and relative ingroup size upon intergroup discrimination. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28 , 1–16.

Novak, D. W., & Lerner, M. J. (1968). Rejection as a consequence of perceived similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9 , 147–152.

Overall, J., & SPiegel, D. (1969). Concerning least squares analysis of experimental data. Psychological Bulletin, 72 , 311–322.

Owen, I. (1973). Defending criminal cases before juries . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport's analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5 , 461–476.

Pfeifer, J. E., & Ogloff, J. R. (1991). Ambiguity and guilt determinations: A modern racism perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21 , 1713–1725.

Reskin, B. F., & Visher, C. A. (1986). The impacts of evidence and extralegal factors in jurors' decisions. Law and Society Review, 20 , 423–438.

Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46 , 190–207.

Senn, D. J. (1971). Attraction as a function of similarity-dissimilarity in task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18 , 120–123.

Shaver, K. G. (1970). Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14 , 101–113.

Shaw, J. L., & Skolnick, P. (1971). Attribution of responsibility for a happy accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18 , 380–383.

Smeaton, G., Byrne, D., & Murnen, S. K. (1989). The repulsion hypothesis revisited: Similarity irrelevance or dissimilarity bias? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 , 54–59.

Smith, C. R., Williams, L., & Willis, R. H. (1967). Race, sex, and belief as determinants of friendship acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5 , 127–137.

Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L., & Bray, R. M. (1982). The social psychology of jury deliberations: Structure, process, and product. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 221–256). New York: Academic Press.

Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L., & Davis, J. H. (1989). Influence processes and consensus models in decision-making groups. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd Ed.) (pp. 279–326), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stasser, G., & Davis, J. H. (1981). Group decision making and social influence: A social interaction sequence model. Psychological Review, 88 , 523–551.

Stephan, C. W. (1974). Sex prejudice in jury stimulation. Journal of Psychology, 88 , 305–312.

Stephan, C. W., & Stephan, W. G. (1986). Habla Ingles? The effects of language translation on simulated juror decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16 , 577–589.

Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Caldwell, C. (1973). Effects of inadmissible evidence on the decision of simulated jurors: A moral dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3 , 344–353.

Sunnafrank, M., & Fontes, N. E. (1983). General and crime related racial stereotypes and influences on juridic decisions. Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 17 , 1–15.

Sweeney, L. T., & Haney, C. (1992). The influence of race on sentencing: A metaanalytic review of experimental studies. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10 , 179–195.

Tajfel, H., Flament, C., Billig, M., & Bundy, R. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1 , 149–177.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Taylor, D. M., & Jaggi, V. (1974). Ethnocentrism and causal attributions in a South Indian context. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5 , 162–171.

Taylor, S. E., & Mettee, D. R. (1971). When similarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20 , 75–81.

Ugwuegbu, D. C. (1979). Racial and evidential factors in juror attributions of legal responsibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15 , 133–146.

Walster, E. (1966). Assignment of responsibility for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3 , 73–79.

Weiten, W., & Diamond, S. S. (1979). A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: The case of defendant characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 3 , 71–93.

Wishman, S. (1986). Anatomy of a jury: The system on trial . New York: Times Books.

Wrightsman, L. S. (1987). Psychology and the legal system . Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Psychology Research Building, Michigan State University, 48824, East Lansing, MI

Norbert L. Kerr

University of Michigan-Dearborn, Michigan, USA

Robert W. Hymes

University of Southern California, California, USA

Alonzo B. Anderson

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norbert L. Kerr .

Additional information

The authors wish to thank Howard Klein and Jane Stanfel for their assistance in data collection and analysis in Experiment 2, and the Editor and two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions on an earlier draft.

About this article

Kerr, N.L., Hymes, R.W., Anderson, A.B. et al. Defendant-juror similarity and mock joror judgments. Law Hum Behav 19 , 545–567 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499374

Download citation

Issue Date : December 1995

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499374

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Strong Evidence
Social Psychology
Psychological Theory
Racial Minority
Criminal Defendant
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Leniency Bias in Performance Ratings: The Big-Five Correlates

Affiliations.

1 Innushuk ConsultSydney, NSW, Australia.
2 Department of Psychology, University of Hong KongHong Kong, Hong Kong.
3 CU Denver Business School, University of Colorado at DenverDenver, CO, USA.
PMID: 28443043
PMCID: PMC5385382
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00521

Some researchers assume that employees' personality characteristics affect leniency in rating others and themselves. However, little research has investigated these two tendencies at the same time. In the present study we developed one index for other-rating leniency and another one for self-rating leniency. Based on a review of the literature, we hypothesized that a generous assessment of peers would more likely be made by those who are extroverted and agreeable than by those who are not. Furthermore, a generous assessment of oneself would more likely be made by people who are conscientious and emotionally stable, than by people who are not. We also investigated if the leniency in rating others and the leniency in rating oneself are part of a more general leniency tendency. Data collected from a sample of real estate dealers provided support for the above hypotheses. Limitations and implications for future research are discussed.

Keywords: Agreeableness; Big Five personality traits; extroversion; others rating; personality; rating leniency; self-rating; work performance.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The interactive effects of race and expert testimony on jurors’ perceptions of recanted confessions.

$\r\nLogan Ewanation*$

1 Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada
2 Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Introduction

Confession Evidence

Expert Testimony

Race in the Criminal Courtroom

Current Study

Hypothesis 1: Based on previous literature suggesting that jurors perceive confessions to be less voluntary for White defendants (e.g., Ratcliff et al., 2010 ), and other research demonstrating an outgroup bias in verdict decisions (e.g., Devine and Caughlin, 2014 ), we predicted a main effect for defendant race such that [predominantly White ( United States Census Bureau, 2019 )] participants would be more likely to convict the Black defendant than his White counterpart.

Hypothesis 2: However, in accordance with the watchdog hypothesis ( Sargent and Bradfield, 2004 ), we predicted an interaction between defendant race and expert testimony for White participants. Specifically, White participants would render fewer convictions in conditions with expert testimony as compared to conditions with no expert testimony for the Black defendant (with no such effect for the White defendant), as this testimony is legally relevant information to which they could attend to be “watchdogs” against racism.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

Screening/Demographic Questionnaire

We used a demographic questionnaire in order to screen participants to ensure that they were jury-eligible. Participants were also asked to provide information regarding their race and gender.

Trial Transcript

Jury Instructions

Juror Questionnaire

Table 1. First-degree murder verdicts by defendant race and expert testimony.

Table 2. Second-degree murder verdicts by defendant race and expert testimony.

Table 3. Voluntary manslaughter verdicts by defendant race and expert testimony.

Table 4. Percentage of not guilty verdicts by charge.

Voluntariness of Confession

Figure 1. Ratings of voluntariness of confession by defendant race and expert testimony for White participants.

There are a number of potential explanations for why we observed no significant overall effect of defendant race. According to the aversive racism framework ( Schweitzer and Nuñez, 2018 ), the influence of racial bias is greatest in ambiguous situations ( Dovidio and Gaertner , 1996 2000 , 2004 ). In the current study, the legal instructions likely removed some of the ambiguity concerning participants’ verdict decision, lessening the effect defendant race may have had ( Pfeifer and Ogloff, 1991 ). Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis observed out-group bias in studies involving property crimes or adult sexual assaults, but much smaller (or non-existent) effects in studies using violent cases ( Devine and Caughlin, 2014 ). Because our trial transcript involved a murder, future research should consider replicating the current study using other crimes, such as burglary.

Limitations

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

Author Contributions

This research received funding from the American-Psychology Law Society’s Diversity Research Award.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

^ The Innocence Project includes false admissions and other forms of self-incrimination in their definition of false confessions.
^ The National Registry of Exonerations defines a false confession as “a statement made to law enforcement at any point during the proceedings which was interpreted or presented by law enforcement as an admission of participation in or presence at the crime, even if the statement was not presented at trial. A statement is not a confession if it was made to someone other than law enforcement. A statement that is not at odds with the defense is not a confession. A guilty plea is not a confession.” In comparison, the Innocence Project’s definition includes false admissions and other forms of self-incrimination in their definition of false confessions.
^ Sixty-two participants failed the manipulation check concerning defendant race, while 184 participants failed the manipulation check concerning the content of the expert’s testimony. For attention checks, participants were instructed to select a particular response. Twenty-six participants failed the first attention check, 29 participants failed the second attention check, and 33 failed the third attention check.
^ In the “weak” cross-examination condition, participants read a case summary where the court reporters indicated the prosecution had presented ineffective cross-examinations of the defense witnesses. In the “strong” condition, the case summary described the prosecution as presenting an effective cross-examination that diminished the defense witnesses’ credibility.

Alhabash, S., Hales, K., Baek, J. H., and Oh, H. J. (2014). Effects of race, visual anonymity, and social category salience on online dating outcomes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 35, 22–32. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.016

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Appleby, S. C., and Kassin, S. M. (2016). When self-report trumps science: effects of confessions, DNA, and prosecutorial theories on perceptions of guilt. Psychol. Public Policy Law 22, 127–140. doi: 10.1037/law0000080

Baker, M. A., Fox, P., and Wingrove, T. (2016). Crowdsourcing as a forensic psychology research tool. Am. J. For. Psychol. 34, 37–50.

Google Scholar

Bertrand, M., and Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. Am. Econ. Rev. 94, 991–1013. doi: 10.1257/0002828042002561

Blandon-Gitlin, I., Sperry, K., and Leo, R. (2011). Jurors believe interrogation tactics are not likely to elicit false confessions: will expert witness testimony inform them otherwise? Psychol. Crime Law 17, 239–260. doi: 10.1080/10683160903113699

Bodenhausen, G. V., and Wyer, R. S. Jr. (1985). Effects of stereotypes on decision making and information-processing strategies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48, 267–282.

Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: is the jury still out? Law Hum. Behav. 23, 75–91. doi: 10.1023/A:1022326807441

Bornstein, B. H., Golding, J. M., Neuschatz, J., Kimbrough, C., Reed, K., Magyarics, C., et al. (2017). Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: a meta-analysis. Law Hum. Behav. 41, 13–28. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000223

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bornstein, B. H., and McCabe, S. G. (2005). Jurors of the absurd? The role of consequentiality in jury simulation research. Florida State Univ. Law Rev. 32, 443–467.

Braden-Maguire, J., Sigal, J., and Perrino, C. S. (2005). Battered women who kill: variables affecting simulated jurors’ verdicts. J. Fam. Violence 20, 403–408. doi: 10.1007/s10896-005-7801-0

Bucolo, D. O., and Cohn, E. S. (2010). Playing the race card: making race salient in defence opening and closing statements. Legal Criminol. Psychol. 15, 293–303. doi: 10.1348/135532508X400824

Burnham, M. J., Le, Y. K., and Piedmont, R. L. (2018). Who is Mturk? Personal characteristics and sample consistency of these online workers. Ment. Health Relig. Culture 21, 934–944. doi: 10.1080/13674676.2018.1486394

Carney, N. (2016). All lives matter, but so does race: black lives matter and the evolving role of social media. Hum. Soc. 40, 180–199. doi: 10.1177/0160597616643868

Chen, H., Cohen, P., and Chen, S. (2010). How big is a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes of odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput. 39, 860–864. doi: 10.1080/03610911003650383

Chojnacki, D. E., Cicchini, M. D., and White, L. T. (2008). An empirical basis for the admission of expert testimony on false confessions. Arizona State Law J. 40, 1–46.

Cohn, E. S., Bucolo, D., Pride, M., and Sommers, S. R. (2009). Reducing White juror bias: the role of race salience and racial attitudes. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 39, 1953–1973. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00511.x

Costanzo, M., Shaked-Schroer, N., and Vinson, K. (2010). Juror beliefs about police interrogations, false confessions, and expert testimony. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 7, 231–247. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01177.x

Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., and Dexter, H. R. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law Hum. Behav. 13, 311–332. doi: 10.1007/BF01067032

Devine, D. J., Buddenbaum, J., Houp, S., Stolle, D. P., and Studebaker, N. (2007). Deliberation quality: a preliminary examination in criminal juries. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 4, 273–303. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00089.x

Devine, D. J., and Caughlin, D. E. (2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychol. Public Policy Law 20, 109–134. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1997.81.2.679

Dovidio, J. F., and Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychol. Sci. 11, 315–319. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00262

Dovidio, J. F., and Gaertner, S. L. (1996). Affirmative action, unintentional racial biases, and intergroup relations. J. Soc. Issue. 52, 51–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1996.tb01848.x

Dovidio, J. F., and Gaertner, S. L. (2004). “Aversive racism,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , Vol. 36, ed. M. P. Zanna (San Diego, CA: Academic Press), 1–52.

Drizin, S., and Leo, R. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. N. Carolina Law Rev. 82, 891–1007.

Duru, N. J. (2003). The Central Park Five, the Scottsboro Boys, and the myth of the bestial black man. Cardozo Law Rev. 25, 1315–1366.

Effron, D. A., and Conway, P. (2015). When virtue leads to villainy: advances in research on moral self-licensing. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 6, 32–35.

ForsterLee, R., ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I. A., and King, E. (2006). The effects of defendant race, victim race, and juror gender on evidence processing in a murder trial. Behav. Sci. Law 24, 179–198. doi: 10.1002/bsl.675

Fulero, S. M. (2010). Admissibility of expert testimony based on the Grisso and Gudjonsson scales in disputed confession cases. J. Psychiatry Law 38, 193–214. doi: 10.1177/009318531003800109

Garcia, D., and Abascal, M. (2016). Colored perceptions: racially distinctive names and assessments of skin color. Am. Behav. Sci. 60, 420–441. doi: 10.1177/0002764215613395

Gomes, D. M., Stenstrom, D. M., and Calvillo, D. P. (2016). Examining the judicial decision to substitute credibility instructions for expert testimony on confessions. Legal Criminol. Psychol. 21, 319–331. doi: 10.1111/lcrp.12068

Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Harrell, F. (2021). HmiscL Version 4.5-0.

Henderson, K. S., and Levett, L. M. (2016). Can expert testimony sensitize jurors to variations in confession evidence? Law Hum. Behav. 40, 638–649. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000204

Henkel, L. A. (2008). Jurors’ reactions to recanted confessions: do the defendant’s personal and dispositional characteristics play a role? Psychol. Crime Law 14, 565–578. doi: 10.1080/10683160801995247

Innocence Project (2021). Research Resources. Available online at: https://innocenceproject.org/research-resources/

Jones, A. M., and Penrod, S. (2016). Can expert testimony sensitize jurors to coercive interrogation tactics? J. For. Psychol. Pract. 16, 393–409. doi: 10.1080/15228932.2016.1232029

Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2020). Available online at: https://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/juryinstructions.htm (accessed January, 2019).

Kalven, H. Jr., and Zeisel, H. (1966). The American Jury. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kassin, S. M. (2008). False confessions: causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 17, 249–253. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00584.x

Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., and Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: on the dangers of presuming guilt. Law Hum. Behav. 27:187. doi: 10.1023/a:1022599230598

Kassin, S. M., and Gudjonsson, G. H. (2005). True crimes, false confessions. Sci. Am. Mind 16, 24–31.

Kassin, S. M., and Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychol. Sci. 7, 125–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00344.x

Kassin, S. M., and McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions. Law Hum. Behav. 15, 233–251. doi: 10.1007/BF01061711

Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A., and Norwick, R. J. (2005). “I’d know a false confession if I saw one”: a comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law Hum. Behav. 29:211. doi: 10.1007/s10979-005-2416-9

Kassin, S. M., and Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: an experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law Hum. Behav. 21:469. doi: 10.1023/A:1024871622490

Kassin, S. M., and Sommers, S. R. (1997). Inadmissible testimony, instructions to disregard, and the jury: substantive versus procedural considerations. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23, 1046–1054. doi: 10.1177/01461672972310005

Kassin, S. M., and Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: an experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law Hum. Behav. 21, 27–46. doi: 10.1023/A:1024814009769

Kassin, S. M., and Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). Coerced confessions, judicial instruction, and mock juror verdicts. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 11, 489–506. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1981.tb00838.x

King, L., and Snook, B. (2009). Peering inside a Canadian interrogation room: an examination of the Reid model of interrogation, influence tactics, and coercive strategies. Crim. Just. Behav. 36, 674–694. doi: 10.1177/0093854809335142

Leo, R., and Ofshe, R. (1998). The consequences of false confessions: deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 88, 429–496. doi: 10.2307/1144288

Leo, R. A., and Davis, D. (2010). From false confession to wrongful conviction: seven psychological processes. J. Psychiatry Law 38, 9–56. doi: 10.1177/009318531003800103

Levett, L. M., and Kovera, M. B. (2008). The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence. Law Hum. Behav. 32, 363–374. doi: 10.1007/s10979-007-9113-9

Levine, T. R., Kim, R. K., and Blair, J. P. (2010). (In) accuracy at detecting true and false confessions and denials: an initial test of a projected motive model of veracity judgments. Hum. Commun. Res. 36, 82–102. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01369.x

Lieberman, J. D., Carrell, C. A., Miethe, T. D., and Krauss, D. A. (2008). Gold versus platinum. Psychol. Public Policy Law 14, 27–62. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.14.1.27

Lopez, G. (2018). There Are Huge Racial Disparities in How US Police Use Force. Washington, DC: Vox Media.

London, K., and Nunez, N. (2000). The effect of jury deliberations on jurors’ propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence. J. Appl. Psychol. 85, 932–939. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.932

Maeder, E., Dempsey, J., and Pozzulo, J. (2012). Behind the veil of juror decision making: testing the effects of Muslim veils and defendant race in the courtroom. Crim. Justice Behav. 39, 666–678. doi: 10.1177/0093854812436478

Maeder, E. M., and Pica, E. (2014). Secondary confessions: the influence (or lack thereof) of incentive size and scientific expert testimony on jurors’ perceptions of informant testimony. Law Hum. Behav. 38, 560–568. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000106

Mitchell, T. L., Haw, R. M., Pfeifer, J. E., and Meissner, C. A. (2005). Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: a meta-analytic review of defendant treatment. Law Hum. Behav. 29, 621–637. doi: 10.1007/s10979-005-8122-9

Moffa, M. S., and Platania, J. (2007). Effects of expert testimony and interrogation tactics on perceptions of confessions. Psychol. Rep. 100, 563–570. doi: 10.2466/pr0.100.2.563-570

National Registry of Exonerations (2020). Exonerations in 2019. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Law School.

Neuschatz, J. S., Wilkinson, M. L., Goodsell, C. A., Wetmore, S. A., Quinlivan, D. S., and Jones, N. J. (2012). Secondary confessions, expert testimony, and unreliable testimony. J. Police Crim. Psychol. 27, 179–192. doi: 10.1007/s11896-012-9102-x

Paolacci, G., and Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 23, 184–188. doi: 10.1177/0963721414531598

Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., and Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment Decis. Making 5, 411–419.

Pezdek, K., Avila-Mora, E., and Sperry, K. (2010). Does trial presentation medium matter in jury simulation research? Evaluating the effectiveness of eyewitness expert testimony. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 24, 673–690. doi: 10.1002/acp.1578

Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., and Acquisti, A. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods 46, 1023–1031. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y

Pfeifer, J. E., and Ogloff, J. R. (1991). Ambiguity and guilt determinations: a modern racism perspective 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21, 1713–1725.

Pickel, K. L., Warner, T. C., Miller, T. J., and Barnes, Z. T. (2013). Conceptualizing defendants as minorities leads mock jurors to make biased evaluations in retracted confession cases. Psychol. Public Policy Law 19:56. doi: 10.1037/a0029308

R Core Team (2021). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Ratcliff, J. J., Lassiter, G. D., Jager, V. M., Lindberg, M. J., Elek, J. K., and Hasinski, A. E. (2010). The hidden consequences of racial salience in videotaped interrogations and confessions. Psychol. Public Policy Law 16:200. doi: 10.1037/a0018482

Redlich, A. D., Summers, A., and Hoover, S. (2010). Self-reported false confessions and false guilty pleas among offenders with mental illness. Law Hum. Behav. 34, 79–90. doi: 10.1007/s10979-009-9194-8

Salerno, J. M., Bottoms, B. L., and Peter-Hagene, L. C. (2017). Individual versus group decision making: jurors’ reliance on central and peripheral information to evaluate expert testimony. PLoS One 12:e0183580. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183580

Salerno, J. M., and Diamond, S. S. (2010). The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 17, 174–179. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.2.174

Sargent, M. J., and Bradfield, A. L. (2004). Race and information processing in criminal trials: does the defendant’s race affect how the facts are evaluated? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30, 995–1008. doi: 10.1177/0146167204265741

Scott, E. (2018). Only One-Third of African Americans Say They Have Confidence in the Police. Killings Like Alton Sterling’s are Part of the Reason. Washington, DC: Washington Post.

Schweitzer, K., and Nuñez, N. (2018). What evidence matters to jurors? The prevalence and importance of different homicide trial evidence to mock jurors. Psychiatry Psychol. Law 25, 437–451. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2018.1437666

Sommers, S. R. (2006). On racial diversity and group decision making: identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 597–612. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.597

Sommers, S. R., and Ellsworth, P. C. (2000). Race in the courtroom: perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26, 1367–1379. doi: 10.1177/0146167200263005

Sommers, S. R., and Ellsworth, P. C. (2001). White juror bias: an investigation of prejudice against Black defendants in the American courtroom. Psychol. Public Policy Law 7:201. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.201

Sommers, S. R., and Kassin, S. M. (2001). On the many impacts of inadmissible testimony: selective compliance, need for cognition, and the overcorrection bias. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27, 1368–1377. doi: 10.1177/01461672012710012

Struckman-Johnson, C., Miller, M. G., and Struckman-Johnson, D. (2008). Effects of Native American race, intoxication, and crime severity on judgments of guilt. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 38, 1981–1992. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00376.x

Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. (1986). “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior,” in Psychology of Intergroup Relations , eds S. Worchel and W. Austin (Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall).

Ugwuegbu, D. C. E. (1978). Racial and evidential factors in juror attribution of legal responsibility. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 15, 133–146. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(79)90025-8

United States Census Bureau (2019). ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates. Available online at: https://data.census.gov/

Watson, S., Appiah, O., and Thornton, C. G. (2011). The effect of name on pre-interview impressions and occupational stereotypes: the case of black sales job applicants. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 41, 2405–2420. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00822.x

Wenger, A. A., and Bornstein, B. H. (2006). The effects of victim’s substance use and relationship closeness on mock jurors’ judgments in an acquaintance rape case. Sex Roles 54, 547–555. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9014-2

Widner, D., and Chicoine, S. (2011). It’s all in the name: employment discrimination against Arab Americans. Sociol. Forum 26, 806–823. doi: 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2011.01285.x

Woestehoff, S. A., and Meissner, C. A. (2016). Juror sensitivity to false confession risk factors: dispositional vs. situational attributions for a confession. Law Hum. Behav. 40:564. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000201

Woody, W. D., and Forrest, K. D. (2009). Effects of false-evidence ploys and expert testimony on jurors’ verdicts, recommended sentences, and perceptions of confession evidence. Behav. Sci. Law 27, 333–360.

Yamamoto, S., and Maeder, E. M. (2017). Defendant and juror race in a necessity case: an ultimate attribution error. J. Ethn. Crim. Justice 15, 270–284. doi: 10.1080/15377938.2017.1347542

Keywords : juror decision-making, recanted confessions, watchdog hypothesis, expert testimony, juries, confession evidence, defendant race

Citation: Ewanation L and Maeder EM (2021) The Interactive Effects of Race and Expert Testimony on Jurors’ Perceptions of Recanted Confessions. Front. Psychol. 12:699077. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.699077

Received: 22 April 2021; Accepted: 02 August 2021; Published: 03 September 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Ewanation and Maeder. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Logan Ewanation, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

IMAGES

Law of Similarity (Gestalt Theory): Examples & Definition (2024)
PPT
SOLUTION: How to write research hypothesis
LESSON 5- Module 3: Gender Similarity Hypothesis Flashcards
PPT
Research Hypothesis: Definition, Types, Examples and Quick Tips

VIDEO

Preference similarity Hypothesis (Linder Hypothesis)
What does hypothesis mean?
Turbulent Energy Cascade Part 3/4
Understanding "Leniency in Judgment"
Triangle Similarity ~ and Congruence ≅ (Part 1 Similarity)
Turbulent Energy Cascade Part 2/4

COMMENTS

Psych Ch. 6
Definition. According to the text, psychological studies find that eyewitness testimony: ... The repression hypothesis posits that traumatic memories can be maintained in the _____ for years, and the use of _____ techniques may be helpful in uncovering them. ... The similarity-leniency hypothesis seems to generally apply when evidence is ...
PSY 306 Exam 4 Study Set Flashcards
Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Automatic exemptions for such things as not understanding English well or being a police officer:, The similarity-leniency hypothesis seems to generally apply when _____. In such cases, jurors tend to _____ to those defendants who are like them., The group of prospective jurors is referred to as _____, and the process of ...
Ethics Quiz 6
Reciprocal altruism. 6 of 20. Term. To willingly accept some cost to ourselves in order to ensure that those who violate laws and social norms suffer consequences for their behavior is referred to as: altruistic punishment. Common punishment. Indirect reciprocity. Inclusive fitness. 7 of 20.
PSY 377 Exam 2
Gender, race, similarity-leniency hypothesis common stereotypes that guide lawyers in striking jurors thinking more toward the end goal. they just wanna reach a verdict.
psy474 exam 2
Quiz yourself with questions and answers for psy474 exam 2, so you can be ready for test day. Explore quizzes and practice tests created by teachers and students or create one from your course material.
Ethics Test #3
28 of 28. Quiz yourself with questions and answers for Ethics Test #3, so you can be ready for test day. Explore quizzes and practice tests created by teachers and students or create one from your course material.
Psychology and Law test 3
Similarity-leniency hypothesis Philosophy of law based on equality and addressing the needs of women. Standard used to evaluate sexual harassment cases, considering the perspective of a reasonable woman.
Psych and Law Final Exam Flashcards
Definition. • One type of challenge in the voir dire stage of jury selection. • When a lawyer challenges a would-be-juror because he or she is claiming that because of bias or prejudice, it is unlikely that the juror will be able to render an impartial verdict based only on evidence and law. Term.
Trivial Similarity-based Biases and Efforts to Avoid Bias in Courtroom
This is known as the similarity-leniency hypothesis (Kerr et al., 1995). Because research on the similarity-leniency hypothesis has primarily examined substantial group similarities, in the present research, I decided to take this a step further and examine non-group, more superficial or
Identifying Juror Bias: Moving from Assessment and ...
For example, defense attorneys relying on the similarity-leniency hypothesis would want to strike venirepersons who are dissimilar to their clients because they believe that jurors who are similar to their clients will have more empathy for them (Blue, 1991; Kerr, Hymes, Anderson, & Weathers, 1995).
Leniency Bias in Performance Ratings: The Big-Five Correlates
Despite the conceptual similarity between leniency in rating oneself and leniency in rating others, there is very little overlap between the two bodies of literature. ... our general hypothesis that leniency can be traced, at least in part, to the rater's personality. It confirmed Hypothesis 1, that people who are outgoing, conscientious, and ...
The Interactive Effects of Race and Expert Testimony on Jurors
This similarity-leniency bias may be explained by social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel and Turner, 1986), which argues that people have a motivation to favor and prefer individuals belonging to their groups (rather than those outside of their groups) as a method of promoting a positive self-concept. In a criminal trial, social identity theory ...
PDF Race, Ethnicity, and Culture in Jury Decision Making
Juror Bias in Noncapital Cases. Dozens of experimental studies have been conducted to examine the influence of defendant race and ethnicity, usually conceptualized as Black versus White, on noncapital juror decision making. Over the past decade, two meta-analyses have provided quantitative syntheses of this research.
PDF Similarity Leniency in Mens Rea Determinations and The Mediating ...
Similarity leniency is found when jurors of one race (e.g., White or Black) are more lenient when judging a defendant of the same race (e.g., White or Black, respectively), and ... race, but this hypothesis has yet to be tested empirically. Moreover, the mechanism driving this phenomenon remains unclear (Devine & Caughlin, 2014).
PDF Defendant-juror similarity and mock joror judgments
Defendant-Juror Simila nd Mock ity Juror Judgments*. Norbert L. Kerr,t Robert W.Hymes, Alonzo B. Anderson,w and James E.Weathers. Itwas hypothesized that juror-defendant similarity would ead to greater leniency toward a criminal defendant when the evidence against that defendant was weak orinconclusive; b when t evidence was strong, it was ...
PDF An Examination of Jury Verdicts for Evidence of a Similarity-Leniency
hypothesis incorporates SIT and a liking-leniency hypothesis proposed by Davis, Bray, and Holt (1977). The liking-leniency hypothesis stated that a well-liked defen-dant should receive more lenient treatment than one who is disliked. Kerr et al.'s similarity-leniency hypothesis suggested that jurors would be more lenient toward a
Strength of Evidence, Extraevidentiary Influence, and the ...
To examine relationships between strength of evidence (SOE) and extraevidentiary variables in the context of Kalven and Zeisel's (The American Jury, 1966) liberation hypothesis, post-trial questionnaire data were collected from judges, attorneys, and jurors associated with 179 criminal jury trials. SOE ratings were strongly correlated with jury verdicts on the three most serious charges ...
Similarity Hypothesis
Similarity Hypothesis: A hypothesis which states that we tend to be attracted towards individuals who share similar important traits, such as attitudes and values. Cognitive Processing: A general term to describe any mental function involved in acquiring, storing, interpreting and manipulating information. These functions can be conscious or ...
Defendant-juror similarity and mock joror judgments
It was hypothesized that joror-defendant similarity would lead to greater leniency toward a criminal defendant when the evidence against that defendant was weak or inconclusive; but when evidence was strong, it was expected that this relationship would be reversed. In Study 1, religious similarity was found to be simply and positively related to evaluation of the defendant and leniency, a ...
Leniency Bias in Performance Ratings: The Big-Five Correlates
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00521. Keywords: Some researchers assume that employees' personality characteristics affect leniency in rating others and themselves. However, little research has investigated these two tendencies at the same time. In the present study we developed one index for other-rating leniency and another one for self-rating ….
Solved The similarity-leniency hypothesis seems to generally
The similarity - leniency hypothesis seems to generally apply when evidence is In such cases, jurors tend to give those defendants who are like them. weak or inconclusive; harsher sentences. meak or inconclusive; the benefit of the doubt. especially strong; harsher sentences. especially strong; the benefit of the doubt.
Frontiers
This similarity-leniency bias may be explained by social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel and Turner, 1986), which argues that people have a motivation to favor and prefer individuals belonging to their groups (rather than those outside of their groups) as a method of promoting a positive self-concept. In a criminal trial, social identity theory ...
The similarity-lenience hypothesis seems to generally apply when
The similarity-leniency hypothesis is a concept in legal psychology suggesting that jurors are often more lenient in their judgments towards defendants who share similarities with themselves, particularly when evidence is weak or ambiguous. Therefore, the correct answer is b) "Weak; lenient judgments." This means, when evidence is weak, jurors ...

Flashcard Machine - create, study and share online flash cards

Shared Flashcard Set

The Interactive Effects of Race and Expert Testimony on Jurors’ Perceptions of Recanted Confessions

Evelyn M. Maeder

Associated Data

Introduction

Confession Evidence

Expert Testimony

Race in the Criminal Courtroom

Current Study

Materials and Methods

Screening/Demographic Questionnaire

Trial Transcript

Jury Instructions

Juror Questionnaire

Voluntariness of Confession

Limitations

Data Availability Statement

Author Contributions

Conflict of Interest

Publisher’s Note

Similarity Hypothesis

Leon Festinger

Amos Tversky

Consequences

Controversies

The effects of the similarity hypothesis on memory retrieval.

Related TDL Content

Tree Testing

Service Blueprints

Cognitive Walkthrough

Deep Learning

Eager to learn about how behavioral science can help your organization?

Defendant-juror similarity and mock joror judgments

Cite this article

Access this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Evaluating Others If They Stand Up for Their Moral Convictions, and Evaluating Ourselves If We Don't Stand Up

Perceiving racial hate crimes: a power-relation perspective

Author information

Corresponding author

Additional information

About this article

Share this article

Leniency Bias in Performance Ratings: The Big-Five Correlates

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Introduction

Confession Evidence

Expert Testimony

Race in the Criminal Courtroom

Current Study

Materials and Methods

Screening/Demographic Questionnaire

Trial Transcript

Jury Instructions

Juror Questionnaire

Voluntariness of Confession

Limitations

Data Availability Statement

Ethics Statement

Author Contributions

Conflict of Interest

Publisher’s Note

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS