1. Predicting Conviction 1
Running head: PREDICTING CONVICTION
Predicting Conviction: The Effects of Juror Bias and Personality
Yeisi Alvarado-Santana, Mary Kathryn Brown, Twain Carter and Grace Won
Oglethorpe University
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John Carton, 4484 Peachtree
Road, NE, Atlanta, GA 30319. Email: jcarton@oglethorpe.edu

2. Predicting Conviction 2
Abstract
In the United States, a citizen is guaranteed that he or she shall enjoy “equal protection of the
laws (U.S Const. amend. XIV, § 1).” This means that a person accused of a crime, in most cases,
has the right to a trial by an impartial jury of the State and district (U.S Const. amend. VI).
Therefore it is important to understand the “extralegal” influences jurors may have which could
play a role in their verdict of guilt (Devine & Caughlin, 2014). This study was conducted to
investigate whether a person’s assignment of blame in a hypothetical case would be influenced
by the gender and/or sexual orientation of the defendant. The hypothetical case, to be rated on
the degree of guilt, to the participants was one in which the defendant stands accused of
unintentionally causing the death of a 2 year old child. The participants in the study were also
given the Big Five personality and self-actualization questionnaire. Participants consisted of 168
adults; 50 men and 118 women. Analyses revealed no interaction of personality variables with
condition. However, the results did show sexual orientation of the defendant did play a factor in
the rating of guilt by the participants in the study.
Keywords: jury, personality, decision making, gender, sexual orientation, juror bias, defendant
criminal cases, homosexual discrimination

3. Predicting Conviction 3
Predicting Conviction: The Effects of Juror Bias and Personality
Lady justice typically is portrayed wearing a blindfold, suggesting that justice should be
objective and “blind” to issues like wealth, status, gender, age, sexual orientation, and other
factors deemed irrelevant to its purpose. In the courts, jurors are expected to uphold this standard
and serve as impartial fact finders who reach unbiased decisions after considering the facts of a
case. However, research indicates that jurors enter courtrooms bringing with them a variety of
attitudes, beliefs, characteristics and personalities that may compromise the very guiding
principles represented by lady justice. Thus, instead of impartial judgments of fact, juries may
render decisions that, in part, are influenced by the jurors’ personal experiences, biases, and
personalities (Brunelli, 2000).
One manner in which some jurors may be expected to hold biased opinions is in regard to
sexual orientation. Recent legal advances notwithstanding, gays and lesbians often have been on
the receiving end of legislation that criminalizes or marginalizes their behavior, restricts their
rights, and places them in vulnerable positions in courtrooms (Brunelli, 2000; Shortnacy, 2001).
For example, the “Homosexual Advance” laws that state a nonviolent homosexual advance is
sufficiently provocative to cause a heterosexual to lose control and kill the advancer in a “crime
of passion” that would elicit only a charge of manslaughter, rather than murder (Mison, 1992).
Not surprisingly, the effects of defendant sexual orientation on jury decisions of guilt have
received empirical attention (e.g., Devine & Coughlin, 2014; Ragatz & Russell, 2010). Generally
research indicates that, compared to their heterosexual counterparts, gays and lesbians tend to
receive more discrimination in the courts (e.g., Hill, 2000; Sherrod & Nardi, 1998).
In addition to prejudices toward certain groups, jurors have personalities that may

4. Predicting Conviction 4
influence their decision making process in the courtroom. Previous research has investigated a
variety of personality variables for their potential contribution to jury decisions, such as
authoritarianism, dogmatism, and belief in a just world (see Stevenson & Caldwell, 2009, for a
review).
In the current study, we were interested in investigating the personality variables of the
“Big 5” traits and self-actualization. Recent research with the Big 5 traits has shown that jurors
reporting higher levels of openness and conscientiousness were less likely to assign guilt (Clark,
Boccaccini, Caillouet, & Chaplin, 2007). In contrast, we are unaware of previous research
investigating the relation of self-actualization to jury decisions. Self-actualization refers to a
concept that is central to Humanistic theories of personality. Rodgers postulated that self-
actualizing tendency is the driving force in one’s life. Individuals strive to become a fully
function person in what Rodgers deemed as being true to one’s self. Self-actualization can only
occur if one is in congruence with their values system. If they are not, an individual will run the
risk of incongruence thus evaluating their experiences by using another person’s value system.
In other words, experiences, what Rodgers called organismic valuing process, create a feedback
system allowing the individual to coordinate his or her experience with the tendency toward self-
actualization. (Rodgers, 440-447) Based on the attributes of self-actualizers, people with higher
amounts of self-actualization (like those high in openness and conscientiousness) might be
expected to assign less guilt than those with low amounts of this attribute.
Overview of the Current Study
To examine juror bias involving sexual orientation, the Big 5, and self-actualization,
participants were randomly assigned to one of four mock trial vignettes. The basic component of
the vignette was consistent across all four conditions of the independent variable and it was

5. Predicting Conviction 5
modeled after a relatively famous case in Cobb County, GA, in which a man faced charges of
murder for the death of his son, whom he left in an unattended car for hours on a hot summer
day. Participants read a summary of the case and were asked to rate their likelihood of assigning
a guilty verdict. What differed across the four conditions was the gender and sexual orientation
of the defendant: gay male, lesbian, straight male, and straight female (see Appendix A for a
copy of the vignette). We also assessed participants’ Big 5 personality traits and level of self-
actualization. We predicted that: (1) Defendants portrayed as gay or lesbian would receive higher
guilty ratings than their heterosexual counterparts, (2) Participants with higher extraversion,
conscientiousness, and self-actualization would be less likely to find defendants guilty (a main
effect across conditions), and (3) Participants with high self-actualization, openness, and
conscientiousness would be less likely to demonstrate discriminatory guilty voting toward the
homosexual defendants than participants low in those characteristics (an interaction effect).
Method
Participants
The participants consisted of predominantly undergraduate students at a private, Liberal
Arts University, and a small percentage of non-student working adults. Out of these 168
participants 166 completed their questionnaires correctly. Thus, the final sample consisted of 49
men and 117 women (mean age= 24.6 years). The sample was not consistent in regards to
gender. The students were predominantly Caucasian (57%). The obtained sample was
representative of the overall leading University population.
Measures
Big 5 Personality Traits (Big5;). This scale was used to measure the participant’s
personality. The five personality traits (OCEAN ) questionnaire -- (1) Openness,

6. Predicting Conviction 6
Conscientiousness (2), Extraversion (3), Agreeableness (4), and Neuroticism (5), consisted of 44
statements that were asked to be rated from 1-5 by the participant, with 1 meaning that the
participant strongly disagreed with the statement and 5 meaning that the participant strongly
agreed with the statement. The participant’s self-actualization was assessed with the Short Index
of Self-Actualization (SI), which is a 15-item self-report scale based on earlier inventories
developed by Shostrom (POI, 1964; POD, 1975). Items are rated on a six point scale, with higher
scores representing greater amounts of self-actualization.
Procedure
All participants were provided with a packet that consisted of a basic vignette involving a
criminal charge (constant), with four randomly assigned conditions: heterosexual male (1), gay
male (2), heterosexual female (3), and homosexual female (4). The participants were asked to
determine the percentage of guilt given to a defendant from a scale of 0-100, with 0 being the
least percentage of guilt and 100 the highest percentage of guilt. Additionally, the participants
were asked to complete a Big Five Personality Traits questionnaire and a Short Index (SI) of
Self-actualization, which were also contained in the packet. The participants were instructed to
complete the questionnaires at the time that they were provided with the packet. As an incentive
for the students to participate, extra credit was provided for those who are a psychology major.
Additionally, as a form of gratitude, participants were given candy after they had completed the
questionnaires. Students were instructed to return the packet to the experimenter after
completion.
Results
Average scores and standard deviations by condition and gender are reported in Table 1.
Percentage guilty ratings were analyzed with a 4 x 2 (Condition [gay male, straight male, lesbian,

7. Predicting Conviction 7
straight female] x Gender [male, female]) analysis of variance (ANCOVA) controlling for
participants’ age. The ANCOVA revealed a significant effect of age, F(1,159) = 4.79, p = .03, ηp
2
= .08, indicating that, as age of participant increased, ratings of guilt decreased (further verified
with a simple correlation between age and guilt rating, r(168) = -.18, p = .02). The analysis also
revealed a main effect of condition, F(3,159) = 2.53, p = .05, ηp
2
= .04. Results involving gender
were not significant.
Table 1
Percent Guilty Vote by Condition and Gender
____________________________________________________________________________
Males Females Total
Condition n M (SD) n M (SD) n____ M (SD)___
Gay Male 14 70.82 (30.03) 28 74.64 (24.01) 42 73.37 (25.86)
Male 13 62.08 (29.03) 29 62.93 (27.95) 42 62.67 (27.94)
Lesbian 8 71.50 (25.75) 34 76.35 (25.53) 42 75.43 (25.33)
Female 15 57.07 (32.98) 27 60.26 (32.73) 42 59.12 (32.45)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Post-hoc tests of least significant difference (LSD) were conducted to follow-up the main
effect of condition. They revealed that gay males were significantly more likely to be found
guilty than heterosexual women (p = .02) and marginally more so than heterosexual men (p = .
08). Gay men did not differ from lesbians in terms of guilty ratings. However, lesbians were
more likely to be found guilty than heterosexual males (p = .04) and females (p = .01). The
difference between heterosexual males and females was not significant.

8. Predicting Conviction 8
In addition to examining for evidence of discrimination against gays and lesbians, we
also tested the potential role of personality variables assumed to affect discrimination tendencies
(i.e., amount of self-actualization and openness) in Table 2.
Analyses revealed no interaction of personality variables with condition. Thus, for
instance, those high in self-actualization were no less likely to vote guilty for any particular
defendant than those low in self-actualization.
Table 2
Intercorrelations Among Personality Variables
_____________________________________________________________________________
_
Measure 1 2 3 4
5_____6__________________________________
1. SA - .41*
.38*
.29*
.29*
-.55*
2. Open - - .32*
.19*
.24*
-.19*
3. Cons - - - .21*
.29*
-.31*
4. Extra - - - - .17*
-.27*
5. Agree - - - - - -.36*
6. Neurot - - - - - -
_____________________________________________________________________________
Note: N = 142. *
p < .01.
Although personality variables did not interact with the condition variable as predicted,
correlation analyses involving the personality variables revealed some significant results.
Specifically, amount of self-actualization was negatively correlated with guilty ratings, indicating
that the more self-actualization reported by participants, the less likely they were to vote guilty,

9. Predicting Conviction 9
r(142) = -.17, p = .04). Similarly, participants reporting higher amounts of the big 5 trait of
openness were less likely to vote guilty, r(142) = -.16, p = .04). The only other big 5 trait related
to guilty ratings was agreeableness, indicating that those high in this trait were less likely to vote
guilty, r(142) = -.15, p = .05).
Supplemental correlation analyses involving only the personality variables revealed that
self-actualization was significantly related to all five of the big 5 traits in predicted manners (i.e.,
higher self-actualization was associated with greater openness, greater conscientiousness, greater
extraversion, greater agreeableness, and less neuroticism; see Table 2). Participants’ age was
related to amount of self-actualization, r(142) = .27, p = .01, openness, r(142) = .21, p = .01,
conscientiousness, r(142) = .19, p = .02, and neuroticism, r(142) = -.18, p = .02. Thus, the older
the participant, the more self-actualization, openness, conscientiousness reported and the less
neuroticism reported. Lastly, no gender differences were observed with regard to any personality
variable.
Discussion
The current study tested two main predictions: (1) An interaction of personality variables
with level of discriminatory jury voting and (2) a main effect of type of defendant. With respect
to the first hypothesis, there were no interactions of personality variables and discrimination
tendencies. Stated differently, participants’ level of self-actualization and Big 5 traits made no
difference in terms of mitigating the discriminatory voting against homosexual defendants.
However, correlation analyses involving several personality variables did reveal the amount of
self-actualization was negatively correlated with guilty ratings. Specifically, participants with
higher ratings of openness were more likely to give a lower score of guilt.

10. Predicting Conviction 10
Our prediction as to gender and/or sexual orientation of the defendant playing a role in a
juror’s decision was supported. Results showed homosexuals received a higher degree of guilty
votes than heterosexuals, despite no other difference in the facts of their cases. We also found no
gender difference on behalf of the participants; male and female participants exhibited the same
voting patterns. This finding is in contrast to some previous studies which have supported that
male participants may exhibit more homophobic reactions than women (Ragatz & Russell, 2010;
Kite & Whitley, 1996). This inconsistency may be attributable to differences in the natures of the
hypothetical cases used in theses studies. For instance, there may be a different view of
homosexuals in a hypothetical criminal case that concerns the death of a child when compared to
most previous research that has involved cases of sexual assault (Ragatz & Russell, 2010).
The main effect of defendant type, consistent with previous research, indicated that
participants rated a higher degree of guilt to homosexual defendants than heterosexual ones.
This finding is somewhat consistent with previous research indicating that female defendants
receive more lenient outcomes in criminal cases compared to male defendants (but in the present
study, the difference was between heterosexual women and homosexual men and women; not
with heterosexual men) (e.g., Ragatz & Russell 2010; Auerhahn, 2007; Daly & Bordt, 1995;
Feather, 1996; Ferguson & Negy 2004; Greatrix, & Enright, 2006; Poorman, Seelau, & Seelau,
2003; Rodriguez, Curry, & Lee, 2006; Seelau, Seelau, & Poorman 2003; Steffensmeier &
Demouth 2006).
Our results involving sexual orientation require replication. For example, more research
is needed to see if the results were unique to the particular crime presented in this study, or if
they extend to other types of crimes (e.g.,burglary or vandalism). Additionally, future studies
should control for participants’ sexual orientation, which we did not and which is a limitation of

11. Predicting Conviction 11
our study. A more balanced sample with respect to gender also would be helpful.
In conclusion, our research supported the existence of bias against sexual orientation in a juror’s
decision to vote guilty, at least for the type of criminal case presented here. While we failed to
find an interaction with certain personality traits, this may have been due to small sample size
and the types of personality traits selected.

12. Predicting Conviction 12
References
Auerhahn, K. (2007). Adjudication outcomes in intimate and non-intimate homicide. Homicide
Studies: An Interdisciplinary & Internatiion Journal , 11, 213-230.
Clark, J., Boccaccini, M. T., Caillouet, B., & Chaplin, W. F. (2007). Five factor model
personality traits, jury selection, and case outcomes in criminal and civil cases. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 34(5), 641-660.
Daly, K. & Bordt. R.L ( (1995). Sex effects and sentencing: An analysis of statistical literature.
Justice Quarterly , 143-177.
Devine, D.J., & Caughlin, D.E. (2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of
individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,
20(2), 109-134. doi: 10.1037/law0000006
Feather, N.T. (1996). Domestic violence, gender and perceptionts of justice . Sex Roles, 507-519.
Ferguson. C.J & Negy, S. G. (2004). The influence of gender and ethnicity on judgement of
culpability in a domestic violence scenario. Violence and Victims , 19, 203-220.
Greatix, S.A & Enright, S. G. (2006). The case of guilty victim: The effects of gender of the
victim and gender and perpetrator on attritutions of blame and responsibility . Sex Roles,
54, 639-649.
Hill, J. (2000). The effects of sexual orientation in the courtroom: A double standard. Journal of
Homosexuality, 39, 93–111.
John, V. B.-M. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes Across Cultures and Ethnic Groups:. American

13. Predicting Conviction 13
Psychological Association, 729-750.
Kite, M.E. & Whitley, M. K. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons
behaviors and civil rights:. Personalit and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336- 353.
Mison, R.B. (1992). Homophobia in manslaughter: The homosexual advance as insufficient
provocation. California Law Review, 80(1), 133-178. doi: 10.2307/3480817
Poorman, P.B., Seelau, E.P., & Seelau., S.M. (2003). Perception of domestic abuse in same-sex
relationships and implications for criminal justice and mental health responses. . Violence
and Victims, 659-669.
Ragatz, L. a. (2010). Sex, Sexual Orientation, and Sexism: What Influence Do These Factors
Have on Verdicts in a Crime-of-Passion Case? Journal of Social Psychology, 150 (4)
341-360.
Rodgers, C. (2011). The Existential-Humanistic Paradigm. In M. H. Hergenhahn, An
Introduction to Theories of Personality (pp. 440-447). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Rodriguez, S. F., Curry, T.R., & Lee, G. (2006). Gender differences in criminal sentencing: Do
effects vary across violent, property, and drug offense? Social Science Quarterly , 87, 318-339.
Seelau, E. S. (2003). Gender and role-based preceptions of domestic violence. Does sexual
orientation matter? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 199-214.
Sherrod, D., & Nardi, P. M. (1998). Homo (Rodgers, 2011)phobia in the courtroom: An
assessment of biases against gay men and lesbians in a multiethnic sample of potential

14. Predicting Conviction 14
jurors. In G. M. Herek (Eds.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice
against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 24–38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Shostrom, E.L., (1964) An inventory for the measurement of self-actualization. Educational and
Psychological Measurement. 24. 207-218
Steffensmeier, D. &. (2006). Does Gender Modify the Effects of Race-ethnicity on Criminal
Sanctioning? Sentencing for Male and Female, White, Black, amd Hispanic Defendents.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22,241-261.
Stevenson, M. C., & Caldwell, T. L. (2009). Personality in Juror Decision-Making: Toward an
Idiographic Approach in Research. Law & Psychol. Rev.,33, 93-114.
U.S Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
U.S Const. amend. VI.

15. Predicting Conviction 15
Appendix A: Basic Vignette
Jury Study #2 (HM)
Imagine that you have been picked for jury duty in the following case: A 40 year old
male defendant stands accused of unintentionally causing his 2yr old son’s death when he left the
child unattended in a locked car, on a hot day. Normally his wife takes the child to day care
before she starts her office job. On this day, however, she was travelling out of state and her
husband had to take the child to day care on his way to work. He told police that he forgot his
child was in the backseat, that his child had been quiet on the drive, and that he arrived at work
thinking about his business meetings. He was not accustomed to taking his child to day care. It
was not until later in the day that he realized what had happened. The prosecutor has charged
him with manslaughter, in part because there is a lack of any evidence that the crime was
committed with intention. No other evidence of wrongdoing or questionable behavior is alleged
by the defendant. The defendant is pleading “not guilty.”