Emotionality and Strength of Evidence on Juror Decision Making
The current study focused on how people process criminal evidence and how this relates to judgments of guilt. We examined how emotionality of the crimes description affects judgments of guilt. We further examined how this interacted with the amount and strengths of evidence presented. Salerno and Bottoms (2009) assert that emotional evidence can affect jury decision making. Evidence such as gruesome photographs, victim impact statements, and emotional evidence can all heighten emotional levels, influencing the way jurors process the information that was presented (Salerno & Bottoms, 2009). This in turn may lead to more penalizing judgments to be made by jurors (Hadit, 2001). In addition, it has been shown that strength of evidence also influences juror decision-making. Wells, Memon, and Penrod (2006) argue that, due to DNA exonerations, eyewitness testimony, the primary piece of evidence in many cases of conviction, has poor validity in producing true convictions. The question therefore arises; will guilty judgments be decreased in the case of weak evidence? Further, to what degree is emotion moderating the use of evidence in assessing guilt?
In the current study, it was hypothesized guilty judgments would be influenced more by highly arousing emotional descriptions of the crime. Further, we hypothesized that strong evidence will produce more guilty verdicts than weak evidence; however this effect will be moderated by the emotionality of the description. Consistent with previous literature we also hypothesized that presenting many pieces of strong evidence would be more convincing than presenting few pieces of weak evidence.
In the current study, it was hypothesized guilty judgments would be influenced more by highly arousing emotional descriptions of the crime. Further, we hypothesized that strong evidence will produce more guilty verdicts than weak evidence; however this effect will be moderated by the emotionality of the description. Consistent with previous literature we also hypothesized that presenting many pieces of strong evidence would be more convincing than presenting few pieces of weak evidence.