The effects of mortality salience and evidence strength on death penalty sentencing decisions

Abstract

The nature of capital cases necessarily makes mortality a highly salient factor in the courtroom. Terror management theory research has previously explored mortality salience effects on behavior in a variety of contexts, including legal judgments. We sought to extend this line of research by directly examining mortality salience effects in the context of capital trials. In Study 1, mock jurors who had been specifically asked to contemplate their own mortality and exposed to trial-related death references (Dual-Focused Mortality [DFM]) were more likely to appropriately weigh evidence regarding defendant future dangerousness than participants only exposed to trial-related death references (Trial-Focused Mortality [TFM]). In Study 2, we manipulated mitigating factor strength using a different capital sentencing scenario. Consistent with the results of Study 1, DFM participants were more likely to appropriately utilize mitigating evidence than TFM participants, particularly when they had more complete comprehension of relevant legal concepts.

Keywords:

• death penalty
• juror decision-making
• jury
• courtroom
• juries
• terror-management theory

Notes

1. Research has supported the connection between terror management theory and just world beliefs. For example, Rosenblatt, Greenberg, Solomon, Pyszczynski, and Lyon (1989) found that morality salience increased rewards given to individuals who upheld cultural standards (i.e., good things happen to good people) and Hirschberger (2006) reported that primes of death led participants to make greater attributions of blame to severely injured victims (i.e., bad things happen to bad people).

In addition, in the process of making the world a predictable place, it is useful for individuals to ascribe internal attributions (a person's dispositions) of responsibility to targets, rather than external attributions (a person's situation) (Heider, 1958; Young, 1991). From a terror management perspective, external attributions of behavior may be problematic because they can contribute to a perception of the world being an uncontrollable place where negative actions can befall us at any time. It should be noted that attributions may be related to legal attitudes, including death penalty support (Young, 1991).

2. It is possible that social presentation concerns prevented participants from answering this question honestly. Indeed, research by Nietzel, Dillehay, and Himelein (1987) has indicated that potential jurors are far more likely to reveal relevant trial attitudes in capital cases when voir dire is conducted individually rather than when prospective jurors must give responses in a group setting. We addressed this potential limitation in Study 2, in which death penalty attitudes were privately obtained from each participant.

3. If awareness of victim suffering is generated by victim-impact statements, this does not imply that a juror's sense of similarity with the victim would be increased. However, generating a sense of similarity is critical in order for the juror to view the victim as a worldview supporter. If an individual felt the victim was a worldview supporter, and the attorney then activated mortality salience through the introduction of victim-impact evidence (or self-focused mortality became salient through other means), we would expect more punitive reactions to the offender. This explanation is consistent with the model of terror management theory and legal decision-making presented by Arndt et al. (2005). However, in this study, we did not present victims’ characteristics that would have created perceptions of high similarity between the victim and jurors.