A qualitative investigation of mock-jurors' theories of emotion and reason

Abstract

Mock-juries' deliberations of murder/manslaughter verdicts were videotaped and analysed. It was found that jurors' deliberations incorporated their theories of emotion and of the relationship between emotion and reason. Although there was agreement among jurors that emotions can overwhelm persons' rational faculties, there was disagreement between jurors voting for murder and for manslaughter as to the relationship of emotion and reason. Jurors voting for murder suggested emotion and reason are interdependent and that persons can simultaneously act from emotion as well as reason, whereas jurors voting for manslaughter suggested the two are independent and that they cannot operate simultaneously. The import of jurors' folk concepts of emotion and reason to the legal system, as well as to our understanding of emotions themselves, is discussed.