Juror decision-making regarding a defendant diagnosed with borderline personality disorder

Figures & data

Table 1. Participant characteristics.

	Complex mental health problems			Severe personality disorder			Total
	N	M	Mdn	N	M	Mdn	N	M	Mdn
Age (years)		31	30		26.9	23		29	24
Gender
Male	8			10			18
Female	17			15			32
Ethnicity
White British	17			13			30
Black/Asian/Mixed/White Other	8			12			20
Demographic group
UG/PG student	9			18			27
University employee	10			7			17
General public	6			0			6

Note: UG = undergraduate; PG = postgraduate.

Figure 1. A flow chart documenting the procedures that participants undertook during the study. PIS = Participant Information Sheet; AQ–27 = Attribution Questionnaire–27; CAQ = Causal Attribution Questionnaire; DRQ = Diminished Responsibility Questionnaire.

Table 2. Between-group Causal Attribution Questionnaire, Attribution Questionnaire–27 and Diminished Responsibility Questionnaire summary statistics, t-statistics and effect sizes.

	Complex mental health problem (n = 25)		Severe personality disorder (n = 25)		Mdiff	95% CI	SEdiff	t (df)	p	Cohen’s d
	M	SD	M	SD
CAQ Locus	18.64	5.48	20.44	3.57	−1.80	[−4.43,0.83]	1.30	t(48) = −1.37	.175	0.38
CAQ Stability	20.32	3.76	20.08	3.62	0.24	[−1.86,2.34]	1.04	t(48) = −0.23	.819	0.06
CAQ Globality	20.84	3.52	20.48	4.67	0.36	[−1.99,2.71]	1.17	t(48) = 0.30	.760	0.08
CAQ Control Cause	11.88	3.50	15.04	5.89	−3.16	[−5.91,−0.40]	1.37	t(48) = −2.30	.026	0.65
CAQ Control Event	13.88	4.76	16.08	4.68	2.20	[−4.88,0.48]	1.33	t(48) = −1.64	.106	0.46
AQ Blame	12.32	3.54	14.20	4.84	−1.88	[−4.29,0.53]	1.20	t(48) = −1.56	.124	0.44
AQ Anger	9.28	4.69	10.40	4.99	−1.12	[−3.87,1.63]	1.37	t(48) = −0.81	.418	0.23
AQ Pity	22.76	4.15	22.20	4.21	0.56	[−1.82,2.94]	1.18	t(48) = 0.47	.560	0.13
AQ Help	18.96	4.89	19.16	4.62	−0.20	[−2.90,2.50]	1.34	t(48) = 0.14	.883	0.04
AQ Dangerousness*	11.24	4.80	15.72	4.69	−4.48	[−7.18,1.77]	1.34	t(48) = −3.33	.002*	0.94
AQ Fear	9.80	5.49	12.28	5.45	−2.48	[−5.59,0.63]	1.54	t(48) = −1.60	.116	0.45
AQ Avoidance	14.68	4.58	17.72	4.22	−3.04	[−5.54,0.63]	1.24	t(48) = −2.43	.019	0.68
AQ Segregation*	7.16	3.17	11.80	5.52	−4.64	[−5.54,−0.53]	1.27	t(48) = −3.64	.001*	1.03
AQ Coercion*	17.16	4.50	20.76	3.56	−3.60	[−5.91,−1.29]	1.14	t(48) = −3.13	.003*	0.88
DRQ Condition	19.72	3.96	18.04	5.07	1.68	[−0.91,4.27]	1.28	t(48) = 1.30	.198	0.36
DRQ Understand	15.44	6.27	15.04	5.58	0.40	[−2.97,3.77]	1.68	t(48) = 0.23	.813	0.06
DRQ Rational	19.64	5.71	19.80	4.82	−0.16	[−3.16,2.84]	1.49	t(48) = −0.10	.915	0.03
DRQ Self Control	20.32	5.77	19.52	5.18	0.80	[−2.31,3.91]	1.55	t(48) = 0.51	.800	0.14
DRQ Explain	20.64	5.03	21.04	4.53	−0.40	[−3.12,2.32]	1.35	t(48) = −0.29	.076	0.08

Note: CAQ = Causal Attribution Questionnaire; AQ = Attribution Questionnaire; DRQ = Diminished Responsibility Questionnaire; CI = confidence interval.

*Significant p value following application of the Holm method of correction for multiple comparisons (Holm, 1979).

Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2), 65–70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4615733

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar