The Effects of Limiting Instructions about Emotional Evidence Depend on Need for Cognition

References

• Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research – conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourgeois, M. J., Horowitz, I. A., ForsterLee, L., & Grahe, J. (1995). Nominal and interactive groups: effects of preinstruction and deliberations on decisions and evidence recall in complex trials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 58–67. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.58
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bright, D. A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Gruesome evidence and emotion: anger, blame, and jury decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 183–202. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9027-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: an individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1032–1043. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.1032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 805–818. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, A., Arndt, J., & Lieberman, J. D. (2004). Firing back at the backfire effect: the influence of mortality salience and nullification beliefs on reactions to inadmissible evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 389–410. doi:10.1023/B:LAHU.0000039332.21386.f4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cush, R. K., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). The influence of limiting instructions on processing and judgments of emotionally evocative evidence. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 13, 110–123. doi:10.1375/pplt.13.1.110
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, K., Lyon, D., & Ogloff, J. (1997). The impact of graphic photographic evidence on mock jurors’ decisions in a murder trial: probative or prejudicial? Law and Human Behavior, 21, 485–501. doi:10.1023/A:1024823706560
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, K., & Bryan, T. S. (1997). Judgmental biases produced by instructions to disregard: the (paradoxical) case of emotional information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 849–864. doi:10.1177/0146167297238006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellsworth, P. C. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 205–224. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol52/iss4/7
   Google Scholar
• Feigenson, N. R., Park, J., & Slovey, P. (2001). The role of emotions in comparative negligence judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 576–603. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02057.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finkelstein, R., & Bastounis, M. (2010). The effect of the deliberation process and jurors’ prior legal knowledge on the sentence: the role of psychological expertise and crime scene photo. Behavioral Sciences and Law, 28, 426–441. doi:10.1002/bsl.914
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ForsterLee, L., Fox, G. B., ForsterLee, R., & Ho, R. (2004). The effects of a victim impact statement and gender on juror information processing in a criminal trial: does the punishment fit the crime? Australian Psychologist, 39, 57–67. doi:10.1080/00050060410001660353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, E., & Dodge, M. (1995). The influence of prior record evidence on juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 67–78. doi:10.1007/BF01499073
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, E., Koehring, H., & Quiat, M. (1998). Victim impact evidence in capital cases: does the victim's character matter? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 145–156. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01697.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haddock, G., Maio, G. R., Arnold, K., & Huskinson, T. (2008). Should persuasion be affective or cognitive? The moderating effects of need for affect and need for cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 769–778. doi:10.1177/0146167208314871
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haugtvedt, C. P., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1992). Need for cognition and advertising: understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 1, 239–260. doi:10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80038-1
   Google Scholar
• Jones, C., & Aronson, E. (1973). Attribution of fault to a rape victim as a function of respectability of the victim. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 415–419. doi:10.1037/h0034463
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kouyama, T., & Fujihara, T. (1991). A basic study of the need for cognition scale. Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 184–192. doi:110002785526
   Google Scholar
• Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409–438. doi:10.1007/BF01044220
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kühl, T., Eitel, A., Damnik, G., & Körndle, H. (2014). The impact of disfluency, pacing, and students’ need for cognition on learning with multimedia. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 189–198. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J.-G., & Thorson, E. (2009). Cognitive and emotional processes in individuals and commercial web sites. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 105–115. doi:10.1007/s10869-008-9087-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenehan, G. E., & O'Neill, P. (1981). Reactance and conflict as determinants of judgment in a mock jury experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 231–239. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1981.tb00740.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leone, C., & Dalton, C. H. (1988). Some effects of the need for cognition on course grades. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 175–178. doi:10.2466/pms.1988.67.1.175
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, J. S., Goldberg, J. H., & Tetlock, P. E. (1998). Sober second thought: the effects of accountability, anger, and authoritarianism on attributions of responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 563–574. doi:10.1177/0146167298246001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberman, J. D., & Arndt, J. (2000). Understanding the limits of limiting instructions: social psychological explanations for the failures of instructions to disregard pretrial publicity and other inadmissible evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 677–711. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.677
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan, W. A. (1999). Through the past darkly: a survey of the uses and abuses of victim impact evidence in capital trials. Arizona Law Review, 41, 143–192.
   Google Scholar
• Mancini, D. E. (2011). The CSI effect reconsidered: is it moderated by need for cognition? North American Journal of Psychology, 13, 155–174. doi:10.1037/t04601-000
   Google Scholar
• Matsuo, K., & Itoh, Y. (2016). Effects of emotional testimony and gruesome photographs on mock jurors’ decisions and negative emotions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23, 85–101. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2015.1032954l
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (2008). Juror need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 385–408. doi:10.1037/t04601-000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGowan, M. G., & Myers, B. (2004). Who is the victim anyway? The effects of bystander victim impact statements on mock juror sentencing decisions. Violence and Victims, 19, 357–374. doi:10.1891/vivi.19.3.357.65763
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meredith, A., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2010). Alibi believability: the effect of prior convictions and judicial instructions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1054–1084. doi:10.1037/t04601-000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., Schumann, D. W., Richman, S. A., & Strathman, A. J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: different roles for affect under high and low elaboration conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 5–20. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.1.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rector, N. A., Bagby, M. R., & Nicholson, R. (1993). The effect of prejudice and judicial ambiguity on defendant guilt ratings. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 651–659. doi:10.1080/00224545.1993.9713920
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruva, C. C., Guenther, C. C., & Yarbrough, A. (2011). Positive and negative pretrial publicity: the roles of impression formation, emotion, and predecisional distortion. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 511–534. doi:10.1177/0093854811400823
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salerno, J. M., & McCauley, M. R. (2009). Mock jurors’ judgments about opposing scientific experts: do cross-examination, deliberation and need for cognition matter? American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 27, 37–60.
   Google Scholar
• Schuller, R. A. (1995). Expert evidence and hearsay: the influence of ‘secondhand’ information on jurors’ decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 345–362. doi:10.1007/BF01499136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• See, Y. H. M., Petty, R. E., & Evans, L. M. (2009). The impact of perceived message complexity and need for cognition on information processing and attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 880–889. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, V. (1991). Prototypes in the courtroom: lay representations of legal concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 857–872. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.857
   Web of Science ®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. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1368–1377. doi:10.1177/01461672012710012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vidrine, J. I., Simmons, V. N., & Brandon, T. H. (2007). Construction of smoking-relevant risk perceptions among college students: the influence of need for cognition and message content. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 91–114. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2007.00149.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinson, K. V., Costanzo, M. A., & Berger, D. E. (2008). Predictors of verdict and punitive damages in high-stakes civil litigation. Behavioral Sciences and Law, 26, 167–186. doi:10.1002/bsl.807
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34–52. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wevodau, A., Cramer, R. J., Clark, J. W. III, & Kehn, A. (2014). The role of emotion and cognition in juror perceptions of victim impact statements. Social Justice Research, 27, 45–66. doi:10.1007/s11211-014-0203-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wissler, R. L., & Saks, M. J. (1985). On the inefficacy of limiting instructions: When jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide on guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 37–48. doi:10.1007/BF01044288
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar