Having the right to an impartial jury is a key component of the American criminal justice system, especially in capital punishment cases. It is important to consider how jurors' attitudes can affect trial outcomes and how attitudes can be most easily swayed. This experiment tested the hypothesis that a death penalty facts formatted emotionally is more influential than death penalty facts formatted logically. Fifty-seven participants were randomly assigned to read facts in an emotional or logical format. All participants responded to various types of questions to measure their attitudes about the death penalty. The results were insubstantial as there was only a slight difference between the conditions. Nonetheless, there is much more research needed in this area to better understand the dynamics of persuasion through the format of information.

1. PRESENTATION TYPE AND DEATH PENALTY ATTITUDES 1
Does fact presentation method affect death penalty attitudes?
Shelby Ullrich
Iowa State University

2. PRESENTATION TYPE AND DEATH PENALTY ATTITUDES 2
Abstract
Having the right to an impartial jury is a key component of the American criminal justice
system, especially in capital punishment cases. It is important to consider how jurors' attitudes
can affect trial outcomes and how attitudes can be most easily swayed. This experiment tested
the hypothesis that a death penalty facts formatted emotionally is more influential than death
penalty facts formatted logically. Fifty-seven participants were randomly assigned to read facts
in an emotional or logical format. All participants responded to various types of questions to
measure their attitudes about the death penalty. The results were insubstantial as there was only a
slight difference between the conditions. Nonetheless, there is much more research needed in this
area to better understand the dynamics of persuasion through the format of information.

3. PRESENTATION TYPE AND DEATH PENALTY ATTITUDES 3
Effects of Type of Information Presented on Death Penalty Opinions
Lawyers toil over cases for what may seem like an eternity as they prepare for trial. The
“perfect” jury is selected, the witnesses are prepped, and attorneys decide the approach they will
use to win their case. Research done at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas surveyed defense
attorneys about their time spent on pre-trial, peri-trial, and post-trial proceedings. In a non-capital
murder case, the median hours spent preparing by the lead lawyer was found to be 461 hours; the
amount of time for a capital murder case significantly increases to a median of 1,075 hours of
trial preparation (Miethe, 2012). Attorneys must understand the jurors, the social perceptions of
their client, similar cases that have gone through the system, and so much more in order to come
out on top.
A key consideration in potential trial outcomes is how a prosecutor can use emotion in
the trial. In a 2009 study, Nancy Berns compiled information on death penalty rhetoric, social
construction of related issues, and the sociology of emotion. Berns (2009) put a special emphasis
on the fact that empathy can be used on both sides of the court room; the defense attorney can
plead with the jury to spare another life and the prosecutor can push for justice for the victim’s
loved ones.
Other research has emphasized this point by Berns about the dual purpose of empathy in
court proceedings. Martha Mussbaum, American philosopher and professor of law and ethics at
University of Chicago, holds strong philosophical ideas have been analyzed and applied to the
idea of rhetoric in the court room. Her attitudes show dissatisfaction with several Supreme Court
decisions because of the emotionality behind them. This research proposed some ideas of how to
make these decisions without being clouded by emotion (Sigler, 2000). Implementing such
practices would have an extreme effect on trial outcomes.

4. PRESENTATION TYPE AND DEATH PENALTY ATTITUDES 4
These considerations are especially important when presenting information in a capital
case; after all, life is on the line. Whether an attorney focuses on emotion, logic, history, or actual
evidence in a trial could have a major impact on the final outcome. A few studies have been done
to see the effectiveness of various methods in death penalty cases, but a straightforward answer
has yet to be found. There have been various studies with varying results; in fact, so many that a
book was published to combine information from several studies into one location. Overall, the
research included in the book was meant to evaluate the relationships between race, empathy,
victim likeability, defendant reliability, and verdicts in death penalty cases. It was found that
people show more empathy toward people more similar to them (e.g. race), empathy had an
effect on the final verdict, and victims that are more positively evaluated resulted in more
support for the death penalty for the offender (Edelman, 2006). Another study confirmed
Edelman’s finding soon after; it was found that both race and emotion played an important part
in the outcome of the trial (Lynch & Haney, 2014).
Similar to these studies, this experiment wanted to assess what role empathy plays in the
court room. The criminal justice system has sought to achieve a purely rational and logical
approach to justice. However, there is an underlying emotionality that will always be there.
Therefore, we wanted to focus on two forms of rhetoric: logic and emotion. The hypothesis
expected that the emotional condition would be more successful in changing death penalty
attitudes. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. One condition had
participants read a detailed story about a particular person charged with a capital crime; the other
presented a list of facts about perpetrators of capital crime.

5. PRESENTATION TYPE AND DEATH PENALTY ATTITUDES 5
Method
Participants
Participants (N = 57) voluntarily participated in the study. Forty-six of the participants
were female, and 11 were male. The average age of all participants in the study was 35 with a
range of 19 to 68. One participant self-identified as African American and 56 self-identified as
Caucasian.
Experimental Design
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions in a 2-cell between-
subjects design that manipulated the way in which information about the death penalty was
presented. In the emotional condition, participants (n = 25) received information in the form of a
story. Facts about the death penalty were included throughout the story of a man facing the death
penalty. In the logical condition, participants (n = 32) received information in the form of a list
of facts about the death penalty.
Materials
All participants received the same facts about the death penalty. However, they were
presented in two different ways, resulting in two stimuli. One stimulus was a detailed story about
a man facing the death penalty given to the participants in the emotional condition; the story
included personal details about his upbringing, his family, and his thoughts about the trial. The
second stimulus was a list of facts about the death penalty given to the participants in the logical
condition. A fact such as, "It costs more to execute someone than to keep someone in prison for
life" was present in both conditions. In the logical condition, this fact was listed as a bullet point
among other facts. In the emotional condition, part of the story included the following: “Alex
could not keep his mind in one place. He had been doing a lot of reading during his time in jail,

6. PRESENTATION TYPE AND DEATH PENALTY ATTITUDES 6
mostly about the death penalty. Thoughts raced through his mind about the injustice of it all.
After all of the appeals, it would cost more to put me on death row than in prison for life.”
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions and, thus, read one of the two
stimuli via Qualtrics.
Measures
Attitudes about the Death Penalty. Nine statements were created to assess participants'
attitudes on the death penalty. An agree/disagree scale was used for the first eight statements.
The scale was a four-point scale and included the following response options: 1 (strongly
disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (agree), and 4 (strongly agree). The eight statements were as follows:
(1) "I believe convicted murderers are given too many appeals." (2) "I believe the death penalty
helps make society safer." (3) "I believe only guilty people are sentenced to die." (4) "I believe it
is alright for one innocent person to be executed if that means 100 more serious criminals get
what they deserve." (5) "I believe that the death penalty is warranted in some cases." (6) "I
believe that if a jury finds someone guilty and sentences them to the death penalty, then the
murderer deserves death." (7) "I believe the death penalty is worse than life in prison." (8) "I
believe the idea "an eye for an eye" should be applied to death penalty sentence." Responses
were averaged to create one score for each participant. Participants that received a higher score
overall reflected a more favorable view of the death penalty ( = 0.751). For the ninth and final
part of the assessment, participants were asked a multiple choice question, "Where do you stand
on the death penalty?" There were two possible responses: (0) "For the death penalty" and (1)
"Against the death penalty".

7. PRESENTATION TYPE AND DEATH PENALTY ATTITUDES 7
Suspicion Check. In order to see if participants had discovered the purpose of the study,
an open-ended question was asked: "What do you think is the purpose of this study?". There was
a large box for participants to write as much as they liked.
Manipulation Check. Two manipulation checks were included to test the effectiveness
of the manipulations used. One manipulation check was for the participants in the emotional
condition and the other was for the participants in the logical condition. Questions were
separated into two composite variables: one assessing the effectiveness of the emotional
condition and one assessing the effectiveness of the logical condition. Both manipulation checks
were formatted as an agree/disagree scale for three statements. The scale was a four-point scale
and included the following response options: 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (agree), and 4
(strongly agree). The statements for the participants in the logical condition were: (1a) "The
information I read at the beginning of this survey had a lot of reasonable and logical facts." and
(2a) "The information I read at the beginning of this survey was simple and coherent." The
statements for the participants in the emotional condition were: (1b) "The information I read at
the beginning of this study made me feel something." and (2b) "The information I read at the
beginning of this survey was very personal and evoked emotions." Both conditions responded to
the same third statement: (3) "The information I read at the beginning of this survey made me
contemplate my stance on the death penalty." Participant's responses were averaged to create one
score for each participant. Participants that received a higher score overall reflected a more
effective manipulation.
Demographic Information. Participants reported their sex, age, and race by selecting the
appropriate response option.

8. PRESENTATION TYPE AND DEATH PENALTY ATTITUDES 8
Results
Manipulation Check
Two separate independent-samples t-tests were done to evaluate the effectiveness of the
two manipulation checks. The manipulation effective for the logical check questions, t(55) =
2.00, p = 0.05. In addition, the manipulation was also effective for the emotional check
questions, t(55) = 2.61, p = 0.012.
Main Analysis
The hypothesis stated that a more emotional approach to expressing facts about the death
penalty influences people’s attitudes about the death penalty. An independent-samples t-test was
performed to test the hypothesis. The independent variable was the type of info that participants
received about the death penalty. The dependent variable was participant's attitudes towards the
death penalty. The results were not significant, t(55) = 1.17, p = 0.25. Participants attitudes about
the death penalty did not differ across the emotional condition (M = 2.20) and the logical
condition (M = 2.34). Overall, the hypothesis was not supported.
Discussion
Between 1976 and 2016 over 1400 people have been executed in the United States
(Death Penalty Information Center, 2016). The National Academy of Sciences recently
examined whether any of these executions were of innocent people. Contrary to fundamental
principles of the criminal justice system, their analysis indicated that 4.1% of death row inmates
are innocent (Gross, O'Brien, Hu & Kennedy 2014), suggesting that the United States
government has, in fact, executed innocent people.
Despite these alarming statistics, a Gallup poll conducted in 2015 indicated that 61% of
Americans still support the death penalty. This trend has been very consistent over the past forty

9. PRESENTATION TYPE AND DEATH PENALTY ATTITUDES 9
years (Gallup, 2015), leading researchers to examine the malleability of death penalty attitudes.
In one study, for instance, researchers surveyed participants' death penalty attitudes before,
immediately after, and ten years after taking a semester-long class about the death penalty.
Attitudes significantly differed immediately before and immediately after having taken the
course; however, ten years out, their attitudes had returned to baseline. This suggests that
attitudes about the death penalty may be short-lived, possibly because such changes tend to be
small (Bohm & Vogel, 2014). One way to make these attitude changes larger in the short term is
to capitalize on people's tendency to respond to emotional information. Indeed, research done in
the past has shown that death penalty attitudes are mostly based on emotion (Ellsworth & Ross,
1983).
The purpose of this experiment was to assess the effect of presenting facts in a more
logical or emotional way on attitudes about the death penalty. The hypothesis was that an
emotional approach would be more successful. Contrary to the hypothesis, the results were not
significant. The manipulations were effective in both conditions, but participants did not respond
any differently to death penalty facts that were presented in an emotional format than to death
penalty facts that were presented in a logical format.
Despite the less than desirable results, there are still important implications and future
research is needed. If one can induce an attitude change in jurors based on the way information is
presented, especially in death penalty trials, it would be a key part of an attorney's job. Even
more importantly than one's job, people's lives, some innocent ones even, are at stake.
Furthermore, such a finding could reveal something even larger than a more effective
rhetoric; people may be influenced by more than just the facts. The way the victim is described,
how the defendant dresses, the personality of the judge, and so many more factors would have to

10. PRESENTATION TYPE AND DEATH PENALTY ATTITUDES 10
be considered. If every little detail played a part in someone's sentencing, it brings the basis of
the criminal justice system into question. The criminal justice system is set up to find someone
guilty or non guilty in the most controlled way possible. Perhaps, the attempts at control such as
jury selection, judge robes, court seating arrangements, and so on only hinder the search for
justice. While it would be nearly impossible to control all of these variables, educating people on
innocent executions and other effects of the death penalty would be beneficial.
Limitations
There are various limitations in this study. First of all, the experiment took place online
through Qualtrics. Participants were able to take the survey at any time and in any setting that
they chose. Since it was a less controlled environment, more variables could have had an
influence. The largest issue with an online survey is that participants may not put as much effort
into participating. Therefore, the responses may be unreliable. A research study in a professional
building where participants are supervised the whole time would ensure more focus and effort.
Overall, in the future, it would be beneficial to have a more controlled setting.
Furthermore, even though the logical condition presented the information in a more
straightforward manner, the information the facts were still emotive. One way to ensure that the
presentation method rather than facts themselves are affecting attitudes, the information included
in both stimuli could include an equal amount of pro-death penalty and anti-death penalty facts.
By using more neutral facts overall, it could counteract the natural emotionality of capital
punishment and allow for only the emotion evoked by the stimuli to be measured.

11. PRESENTATION TYPE AND DEATH PENALTY ATTITUDES 11
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to get a better idea of what methods best influence people's
opinions and apply it to a key social issue: the death penalty. Participants read facts about the
death penalty in one of two formats, either logical or emotional. The hypothesis stated that an
emotional format would have a greater effect on death penalty opinions. While the manipulation
was effective, there was not a significant difference between the two groups. While substantial
changes cannot be extrapolated from the findings, there is potential for more research in this
area. As mentioned, is is likely that innocents have been executed by the American criminal
justice system. When more is learned about the effect of fact presentation method, there will be
valuable insight on combatting this issue.

12. PRESENTATION TYPE AND DEATH PENALTY ATTITUDES 12
References
Berns, N.. (2009). Contesting the Victim Card: closure discourse and emotion in death
penalty rhetoric. Sociological Quarterly, 50(3), pp.383-406.
Bohm, R.M., & Vogel, B. L. (2014). More than ten years after: The long-term stability of
informed death penalty opinions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(4), 307-327.
Death Penalty Information Center. (2016). Facts about the Death Penalty [Fact Sheet].
Edelman, B.C.. (2006). Racial Prejudice, Juror Empathy, and Sentencing in Death
Penalty Cases. New York, NY, USA: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Ross, L. (1983). Public opinion and capital punishment: A close
examination of the views of abolitionists and retentionists. Crime & Delinquency, 29(1), 116-
169.
Gallup. (2015). Death Penalty [Graph].
Gross, S. R., O’Brien, B., Hu, C., & Kennedy, E. H. (2014). Rate of false conviction of
criminal defendants who are sentenced to death. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 111(20), 7230-7235.
Lynch, M., Haney, C.. (2014). Emotion, authority, and death: negotiations in mock
capital jury deliberations. Law & Social Inquiry, 40(2), pp.377-405.
Miethe, T.D.. (2012). Estimates of Time Spent in Capital and Non-Capital Murder Cases:
A Statistical Analysis of Survey Data from Clark County Defense Attorneys.
Sigler, M.. (2000). The story of justice: retribution, mercy, and the role of emotions in the
capital sentencing process. Law & Philosophy, 19(3), pp. 339.